Guest Post by Steve Kirsch
Aaron Siri debated Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the Berkeley Law School. Neither persuaded the other that he was right. Courts usually trust the government on whether vaccines work. That’s the problem.
Executive summary
Here’s the debate between Aaron Siri and Berkeley Law School Dean Chemerinsky that took place on May 31, 2022. Here’s the backstory as to why this is just being released now.
It boils down to this:
- Courts have ruled that the state is allowed to protect the public from harm by mandating vaccines
- Courts have always sided with the government as to whether it is a vaccine and whether it works.
Siri was right in that these things are not vaccines and they have no public benefit. But the law doesn’t work that way: the judges trust the government.
So the bottom line is that even if the vaccine kills everyone who takes it, if the government says it is safe and those deaths were just coincidences, the courts will go along with the government and allow them mandate you take the vaccine.
Occasionally, there are smart judges who have figured out that the government doesn’t get it right about vaccines.
Unfortunately, there aren’t enough of those judges to go around.
Important nuance: the past decisions allowed minor fines
Jacobson lost, but all he was forced to do was pay the cash fine of $5.
From a comment from Paul:
Mass v Jacobson was primarily a taxation case that has been pulled into the vaccine debate. It has been misinterpreted by the media, and by many lawyers who have not studied the issue.
The question before the Court was whether the public health department had powers to collect revenue. They were fining the unvaccinated. The court (rightly) said yes, you have the power to fine people as long as its not excessively burdensome (the fine was $5).
This is the same principle that allows the health department, for example, to fine restaurants who violate health codes (in other words, the treasury is not the only ones who can collect revenue).
One can argue this has gotten out of hand, with virtually every arm of the government collecting fees, but that’s a different story. And, the Court may have (inadvertently?) given public health the power to define what is safe (in this case the vaccines are NOT safe), but that is also beside the point.
The point is, the fine can not be excessively burdensome.
So any reasonable person would say that firing someone is definitely more burdensome than a $5 (or even $100) fine.
At the beginning of this, if they had just said, anyone who isn’t vaccinated has the option to pay $100 to get the equivalent of a vaccine card (to keep their job, get their passport, whatever), then it would have been in line with Jacobson and we would be a LOT better off today.
Sure it’s still grossly unfair, and sure the courts need to be looking into the safety of these vaccines. But millions of people would have just said, sure, take the $100 out of my paycheck or whatever, and so many lives would have been saved.
Also, preventing someone from travel is MORE than a fine, it’s a restriction on freedom, which is outside the scope of Jacobson.
Summary
I agree with Aaron Siri that the courts need to stop trusting the government and be finders of fact.
No government should be able to mandate a vaccine unless they can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the intervention’s benefits outweigh the risks. The burden should be on the government, not on us to prove it is unsafe.
And even then, I would have trouble with this reasoning because they can’t prove it is safe and where there is risk, there must be choice.
Congress needs to change the law to make it clear: no more vaccine mandates.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Why are we giving a platform to every freaky looking nebish that can wrest a sinecure from the system?
Show me the part of the Constitution that says anything about vaccines.
It doesn’t exist, so the premise is rejected. I don’t care what the oddballs and twisted sisters sitting around in robes have “interpreted”, and there’s no way on God’s green Earth I would ever listen to anyone that looks like any of these people unless it’s to console them about their sad, unhappy lives and maybe offer them a shovel and later a meal if they looked like they needed it. Which they don’t.
Gross. And more than that, useless. Can you imagine that your role in life is just sitting around and talking about things in such minute detail that you actually get to the point where you claim that the framers of the Constitution gave you a mandate to inject human beings with a needle against their will? It is clearly some kind of mental illness and for some reason we just let them continue with it until the point that people are quite literally surrendering their agency as human beings. To people who look like that.
SMH.
General welfare clause?
You forgot the sarc tag
One of the multitude of issues with the CONstitution is weasel phrases, that are open to unlimited interpretation, in favor of capricious, arbitrary, totalitarian power, such as “necessary and proper” and “general welfare”.
“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. Power is what all messiahs really seek: not the chance to serve. This is true even of the pious brethren who carry the gospel to foreign parts.” ― H.L. Mencken, Minority Report
“The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic.” ― H.L. Mencken, Minority Report
“Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule—and both commonly succeed, and are right.”
― H. L. Mencken, Minority Report
“A man’s natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime; whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, or by millions calling themselves a government.” ― Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority
https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2095916-no-treason-the-constitution-of-no-authority
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2387235-on-liberty
“Necessary and proper” is a very slippery slope. “General welfare” means reparations and genital mutilation and UBI and forced injection, among many other sage fiats, apparently.
You just have to pass it to find out whats in it.
As stated by a truly honest, highest integrity person and murkican representative.
The WHOLE of the system is gross and indecent, top to bottom. It is polar opposite of what was perhaps once intended.
People like Kirsch are controlled opposition who are there to do limited hangouts, while still pushing the official narrative that Covid is real, and that mandates are constitutional.
He’s completely full of shit.
Nah, he and Berenson are Leftists who find themselves in a circumstance that is new and uncomfortable for them — i.e., in very limited fashion, they’re temporarily in opposition to totalitarianism.
It’s awkward and they try to limit the scope of their opposition as much as they can. Berenson is more leftist, and so limits himself more.
“…there’s no way on God’s green Earth I would ever listen to anyone that looks like any of these people…”
Of course not. 😂😂 I feel sorry for all ugly people who cross your path.
Cross your paths, and dot your pikes.
I take issue with the title of the feature, right out of the gate this morning.
“Are vaccine mandates constitutional? Yes”
Really? Es Verdad?
I would postulate not only NO, but HELL NO, regardless of what some black robe says,
or even the highest panel of them, that has the final say in this country.
That is, if SCOTUS even weighs in on a given issue of importance that
must be decided because there is so much of a divisive argument being fought.
At issue is an individual’s God given right to decide what suits them best,
when it comes to determining their own health and well being.
Meaning, no governing body ought to be able to force someone to accept a needle in their arm, for the greater good of society.
Unless of course, it’s on death row, or in hospice. /s Right, Canada?
History has proven that judges don’t always get it right.
Likewise, from the top court, down to the local court, where (sometimes incompetent) people who have risen to the ranks of being an arbiter of legal disagreements are frequently biased in their personal views, which translated, means they take liberties with interpretations of constitutional (our most basic) laws.
As written by courageous men in troubling times, at the beginning of a brave new world.
Our Founding Fathers.
Splitting hairs, on the meaning of original words, often by interpreting anew what they deem was actually meant by the authors of those original words. In their opinions.
So, this branches out to affect our 2A, besides this issue of forced ‘vaccine’ mandates.
Case law is built on past precedent. There’s a Latin term catch phrase for this that escapes me at the time of this comment.
To wit, Let past decisions be our guide. What has already been decided in similar arbitration from the past shall take precedence and be the ruling decision, moving forward.
Now the 2nd half of the title of today’s Kirsch feature is notable in it’s importance.
Are these really vaccines? NO.
Once again, it’s noteworthy to be aware how the CDC changed the definition of a vaccine,
as this current fiasco over the last 4 years has emerged.
Much as a judge manipulates words to interpret our Constitution here in the U.S.,
a bias has been put forth, to further the agenda that’s been launched in the fiasco.
And that’s just one small aspect of the larger picture.
What will be interesting is how this gets hashed out as we move forward, with the realization that the masses are starting to wake up, and booster uptake numbers are
frustratingly low as of late.
Not only here in the States, but across the world.
“Hold on a minute, with your claims of what’s required, for the greater good.”
It’s becoming increasingly clear that as the tide rolls out, the masses are noticing
that the emperor who waded into the surf earlier shockingly has no clothes on.
Its pompous robe is no longer there. A garment or two of honor is missing.
The emperor is naked, for all the world to see.
Sadly though, the narrative push will not go away, in their lust for power and control.
New variants are on the docket, besides a multitude of other nefarious storm clouds
that are continually being set up on the horizon.
Perhaps it is time the Admin team reposts John Coster’s tune “Lost Horizon” back to the sidebar of the blog. It’s a catchy one, with lyrics relevant to these crazy times.
“Courts have ruled”.
Now there is the problem in a nutshell.
No Constitutional rights needed or allowed.
No Bill of Rights pursued.
SCOTUS has a 220+ year history of sidestepping, re-interpreting, and re-imagining the U.S. Constitution in whatever ways it deems convenient at the time of a particular decision.
You know, a “living, breathing Constitution” and all that jazz.
Nothing was ever done to correct the deficiencies of Article 3, that were pointed out by “anti-federalists” before the Constitution was ratified.
Nothing was ever done to rein in SCOTUS after the usurpation of power that was Marbury v Madison.
Judicial activism is judicial tyranny.
Judicial tyranny… it’s what’s for government.
Many imbeciles, like Kirsch, support judicial tyranny.
.
In general, as soon as I see the word “Berkeley”, I know it’s going to be some kind of screwed up bullshit that I’m going to vehemently disagree with.
So your trigger word is Berkeley.
I lose time whenever I draw the queen of diamonds.
I lose time whenever I draw the queen of diamonds.
I see what you did there.
Surely the one arguing FOR the cause will be mocked here. And still, defended by a few.
Chemerinsky.
Parenthesis, in triplicate, flanking both sides of that tell were excluded purposefully.
Sharper minds herein will figure it out.
The defenders will argue that point is getting old.
Much like whites are getting tired of the race card being constantly played, in the game of blame.
With regards to the other question, it’s hard to ignore the pattern,
in circles of power with banking, media, government, and industry, up close at the wall,
with an allegiance by many, due to the reward given, to maintain the allegiance.
Detractors of such allegiance are branded with an ad-hominem label for their failure to
support and defend the allegiance, in another aspect of the pattern.
Interesting parallel, to the gender argument, by those who brand their opponents,
in the push for trashing traditional family values, and the binary option as gifted to most of the creatures that become incarnate, emerging into life with origins from Our Source of all.
Discuss among yourselves.
The way I see it, they can talk constitutionality with the barrel of my loaded rifle.
Unfortunately for them, if it ever comes to that, the rifle won’t be listening.
I like your comment better than my own.
Yeah, guns are awesome.
They can defeat anything other than what they can’t.
Drones.
Ever try shooting a drone flying at a 1,000 feet altitude with your rifle?
Now try 10,000 feet.
Seems to me the cure for drones is lasers.
Lasers are anathema to digital cameras.
Drones rely on digital cameras.
The math looks good.
The “government” does not act in good faith. It is irrelevant as to the definitions and supposed efficacy of products they choose to coerce onto the population. There is no precedent of law to debate.
It is clear that the public benefit perversion of some leftover utilitarian fever dream has been used as a blunt instrument to wear down the explicit limitations of government per the highest law to the point where it has reached its zenith of inversion. Democracy to Democide.
It wasn’t enough to take a man’s land by immanent domain so that a road can be built. To the mall being built by the senators brother. No, they want a free put option on our very bodies. These are the same people who like to talk about the sainthood of that scoundrel Lincoln because slavery.
The law exists now only as a construct of unilateral power to facilitate the aggregation and protection of that power – and as a means to control those under its yoke and associated delusions of democratic social order.
Kinda like the whole “rules based international order’ and ‘bullies’ a la the Ukraine puppeteers. TPTB say these things with a straight face. Oh! the hypocrisy! See you in court. Tell that to the Ukies.
So that face requires punching. The framers made this clear too. But I’d just call that common sense. The only question is how long the separate-and- ignore them phase lasts before its 3pm in the schoolyard.
If an actual debate were possible it would be different.The left doesn’t even admit to anything you say,it will be “couched”or turned into accusation.
Personally,it has always disappointed me that the idea/ideal of America has been boiled down into politics.There exists NO HIGHER IDEAL than expediency and greed.
So where do we stand, incidentally, when a court can order something that is clearly unconstitutional? The Jan. 6 people must be asking the same question. I doubt we can write our way out of such a quandry. This all makes the 2nd Amendment so abundantly relevant.
We can’t vote our way out, either.
You can kiss that 2nd amendment goodbye. We have it (barely), but won’t use it. It should have already been used for so many reasons. False security.
To make big pharma void of liability is un-constitutional. Kind of of misses the real argument. If it were so, Pfizer would be out of business and some doing time in prison.
Seems,
zero liability may have made
Pfizer more profitable
than a Vegas casino.
What horseshit!I have the RIGHT to self-determination because IAM!,I EXIST on this planet and do NOT need permission from any other human!
The Constitution PROHIBITS any group,person or corporation FROM denying your rights….yeah I know.you tell me where we are…….and no,it won’t be okay……
I can’t wait to go to trial for anything these days. A Jury of my peers….. Are they Vaccinated? Then they are not my peers…. Even those that paid $100.
Two commie joos talking shite. Why is it every article is about or written by joos? Would anyone at Berkeley even know what is constitutional?
NO, it is not constitutional to force us into Big Pharma poisons of any kind. How much do shills such as these get paid to push genocide? Remember their names when they start rounding up the people who pushed the shots and the pills in this global mass murder.
Obviously, the U.S. Constitution does NOT allow for a federal vaccine mandate, but I don’t think anything in the Constitution would prohibit a State from having a vaccine mandate. I couldn’t tell which situation the article was talking about.
Experimental vaccines are NOT constitutional.
You must bow down and worship the image at the sound of the trumpets…Or be cast into a firey furnace.
NOTHING about this entire debacle was constitutional, including vaccine mandates. But guess who does not know their rights anymore?? Pretty much the entire population, apparently.
What constitution are these fellas referring to?
Can people sign binding contracts that supercede or give away their constitutional protections?
Yep.
Freedom to contract.
Many people whining about “meh constitutional rights” being stepped on, probably have at least one dot gov adhesion contract in their wallet which says they already signed away those protections for a “benefit”.
And if I had to look, I could probably find a few more where the freaking morons signed away their “constitutional protections”
And that is why dot gov can mandate.
One contracts with dot gov from an inferior position.
People freely signed these ADHESION CONTRACTS to get “benefits”.
The benefit is “do what you are told” or lose the benefit.
Surprised there has not been a big 501C3 debate since the lockdowns kept most people out of their churches. Contracting in their system is a trap.
I just thought about that yesterday, that possibly the most disappointing aspect of the saga is the failure of the churches and everybody within, both parishioners and clergy.
I always thought that Christians should be lights in a dark world, should come together where the world wants to divide us, and should be there for the sick, the weak and the disheartened. Boy, did that ever not happen when we had a chance to prove it.
We have invited the pastor of our church over for dinner next week. I will thank him for writing a letter in support of my husband’s religious exemption, but I am sure I will not be able to keep my mouth shut about closing the church completely for who-knows-how-long (I haven’t kept track because I have not gone back at all, but I think it was closed for 6-9 months), for mandating masks when it wasn’t even mandated by the town any more, for encouraging nobody to shake hands, hug or otherwise mingle, and now for locking the doors during service to “keep everyone safe in light of the recent shootings.”
Virtually NO founding father saw the Supremes (aka, the clowns in gowns) as the SOLE arbiter of the Constitutionality of legislation or the actions of government. Fuck the clowns.
Gown clowns, that’s funny.
Constitutional according to who??? It seems some people have a very bizarre way of twisting plain language. There’s nothing in the US Constitution or State Constitutions about healthcare, medicine, mandates etc etc etc. In fact the writers of the US Constitution would be horrified at the thought of any government having the power to force citizens to have some Goo injected into them. And if a government has that power then it’s citizens are not free and should be ashamed of claiming to be. I have one vaccine injured child. And it will be a cold day in hell before ANYBODY comes near my kids, me or anybody in my family with any needles full of God knows what. I will take that as a threat on their lives and act accordingly. People need to wake up and get over their Government Worship. Governments are Evil to the core. So are the people in them. Anybody ok with with government scum claiming to have such authority better not ever claim to be Free or live in a free country.
The 4th Amendment states that a US citizen has the right to be ” secure in their person” meaning that the government has no right to force something upon you, that you believe is harmful to your health.
“Vaccine mandates are Constitutional”.
How about not in a fucking million years!