Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Monday, 10-Jun-2024 20:32:51 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

   in reply to

   • Autumn
   Ummm... Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) kinda tanks the theory re no coercion tbh.
   
   Plus, I don't believe prep itself states that the vaccination must be voluntary. If it does, which specific subsection?
   https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/247d-6d
   
   I think the big issue is that the statute prohibit judicial review of the secretaries decision, which means that the secretary doesn't have to follow prep at all, other than issuing a declaration, because no court can review it. That's a problem, because there is no protection where the secretary exercises his discretion maliciously or in violation of law. This is beyond chevron deference.
   • Embed this notice
     Autumn (autumn@noauthority.social)'s status on Monday, 10-Jun-2024 20:32:52 JST Autumn

     @GodsRiddles
     I'm in talks with several law firms to sue the federal, state, and local governments over current COVID-19 and seasonal flu drug mandates because those mandates require you to surrender your fundamental liberty interest to sue another person who injures you from the drug or its administration, which is an unconstitutional requirement. You can read why here:

     https://covidpenalty.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/PREPEUA-Preemption-Argument.pdf