April 18, 2012
By Alan Phillips, J.D.
“So New York thinks children are smart enough to make their own health decisions. If this is the case, why not let them eat ice cream for dinner?” –KTRN
New York’s A343 and S384, if enacted into law, will give children the right to consent to HPV and Hep B vaccines, without the knowledge and consent of their parents. Regardless of your position on vaccines, these bills set a disturbing precedent in violation of the U.S. Constitution. If you live in New York, take or send this Memorandum of Law to your state representatives, along with any other concerns you may have, to oppose these bills!
As a starting place, constituents are “one person with one vote.” If your position is one held by a minority, which is usually the case with vaccine freedom-of-choice advocates, legislative activism is an up-hill battle. But legislative activism involves the art of persuasion, since ultimately, legislatures can enact any law they have the votes for, Constitutional or not. So, if you can tell your representative, “I don’t like this bill” and why that can be persuasive, but if you can add to that, “and by the way, you can’t enact this bill into law because it’s unconstitutional,” you can substantially bolster your “one person, one vote” starting point. Furthermore, a loud minority can often influence legislation considerably, and a compelling legal argument can add considerable “volume” to your position. So, if this Memorandum represents your views, then given a copy to your NY rep today!
Meanwhile, here’s a summary of some of the legal and other problems with NY’s A343 and S384:
1. They are unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated: “Most children, even in adolescence, simply are not able to make sound judgments concerning many decisions, including their need for medical care or treatment. Parents can and must make those judgments.” Giving medical decision-making authority to children violates parents’ 14th Amendment Constitutional due process right to parent their children. When the state takes parental decision-making away from parents, it is essentially saying that the parents are unfit to make those decisions. When the state gives that authority to children, it is saying that kids are fit to make decisions that the parents aren’t fit to make. Rather absurd, isn’t it?!
2. These NY bills violate parents’ First Amendment “free exercise” of religion. Parents, and not children, have the legal authority to exercise a vaccine religious exemption for their children under N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 2164(9). They also violate the NY State Constitution’s religious liberty section, which supports NY parents’ right to refuse vaccines for their children for religious reasons.
3. These bills violate the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which requires “each healthcare provider who administers a vaccine” to “provide to the legal representatives of any child” a copy of information “prior to the administration of the vaccine.” A child can’t consent to the administration of a vaccine without the parent’s knowledge and consent if the person administering the vaccine must first give the parent vaccine information. If healthcare providers administer a vaccine to a child without first giving the required information to parents, they are violating federal law, and in the process, probably violating state medical ethical rules at the same time (because of violating federal law), subjecting themselves to discipline by their state medical, nursing, or other relevant boards.
March 27, 2012
By Steve Watson
Appearing on Bloomberg News today, GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul said he suspects that the Supreme Court will rule it is Constitutional for the government to uphold a mandate requiring most Americans to buy health insurance.
Oral arguments begin this week on the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as ‘Obamacare’. All the GOP candidates have pledged to repeal the law.
“I suspect they’re going to rule it constitutional, but that is a big guess out of thin air,” Paul said, adding, “this Supreme Court is slightly better than in the past, [but] they haven’t done a real good job in defending the free market and the original intent of the Interstate Commerce Clause.”
Government lawyers are using the commerce clause as an essential part of their argument for the constitutionality of the individual mandate, which would take effect in 2014.
Paul, who has called Obamacare an “unconstitutional monstrosity”, told Bloomberg that it would “be a real tragedy” if the Supreme Court were to support the law.
During the interview, the Congressman also addressed the ongoing GOP nomination race and defended his vow to stay in the race right up to the national convention.
“Why should we quit and say, ‘OK, it’s getting late, so we all have to get together and quit debating the issues’? No, I think the debate should go on,” he said. “It’s not like this is the first time they didn’t have a candidate by this time in the cycle. The Democrats didn’t have one by this go-around, didn’t happen until June. I don’t think it hurts to debate the issues.”
Paul added that he will not drop out because he is the only candidate “really discussing the alternative to our foreign policy, monetary policy or our financial crisis and spending” as well as “militarism overseas.”
March 19, 2012
By Brandon Turbeville
“Things are getting scary. Obama signs another Executive Order. This time, he’s going after food and water.” –KTRN
In a stunning move, on March 16, 2012, Barack Obama signed an Executive Order stating that the President and his specifically designated Secretaries now have the authority to commandeer all domestic U.S. resources including food and water. The EO also states that the President and his Secretaries have the authority to seize all transportation, energy, and infrastructure inside the United States as well as forcibly induct/draft American citizens into the military. The EO also contains a vague reference in regards to harnessing American citizens to fulfill “labor requirements” for the purposes of national defense.
Not only that, but the authority claimed inside the EO does not only apply to National Emergencies and times of war. It also applies in peacetime.
The National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order exploits the “authority” granted to the President in the Defense Production Act of 1950 in order to assert that virtually every means of human survival is now available for confiscation and control by the President via his and his Secretaries’ whim.
The unconstitutionality of the overwhelming majority of Executive Orders is well established, as well as the illegality of denying citizens their basic Constitutional and human rights, even in the event of a legitimate national emergency. Likewise, it should also be pointed out that, like Obama’s recent Libyan adventure and the foregone conclusion of a Syrian intervention, there is no mention of Congress beyond a minor role of keeping the allegedly co-equal branch of government informed on contextually meaningless developments.
February 21, 2012
By Madison Ruppert
“Didn’t Obama run on a platform of change? Apparently not.” –KTRN
So much for change. The Obama administration is continuing their efforts to go back on every single campaign promise, and beyond all odds make themselves look even worse than the administration of George W. Bush.
Personally, I didn’t think such a thing was possible, but with the extrajudicial killing of Americans, refusal to explain why they think they can engage in such activities (multiple times, no less), the passing the radically un-American National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA), and so much more, Obama is doing a great job at proving me wrong.
Now to continue this trend, Barack Obama has instructed the Justice Department to defend the warrantless wiretapping policy first introduced under George W. Bush.
In response, just last week the Department of Justice filed papers with the Supreme Court seeking to overturn a decision from an appeals court which allowed a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to continue.
This suit challenged the constitutionality of a law passed in 2008 which gave the American government what had previously been an unprecedented amount of power to snoop on American citizens without any semblance of probable cause.
February 10, 2012
By Gordon Duff
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 has provisions in it so illegal, so unconstitutional that any moron could see it. Now we hear that state after state is introducing laws to “nullify” this silly law. This should sound like good news, states loving democracy.
States, especially those lined up to oppose the NDAA act are run by lobbyists from health care, public utilities, organized crime (which should have been put first), the casino industry and, over the past couple of years, the Zionist lobby.
Not just that, there is something much worse going on here. This is a law that was created to fail. Nobody wanted it. We already have two illegal Patriot Acts that do the same thing, we suspended habeas corpus in 2005 and everyone whining about the NDAA supported the same things they now say they hate.
This means, of course, that bribe money is flowing everywhere and we are surrounded by cheats and liars, whodathunkit?
First of all, nobody wanted this law, not really. The FBI never asked for it, the Army says they would never allow their troops to use it, the president says he was forced to sign it and found it offensive. Then why was it written?
Let’s start with the doctrine of “nullification.”
This is how states left the union during the Civil War. States in the South were being threatened with an end to slavery, something which the constitution, if enforced as it should have been, would never have allowed in the first place. The Declaration of Independence, a law I tend to place well above the constitution, a prostituted document if I ever saw one, really freed the slaves in 1776.
We had cheats and liars then too.
The problem we have is that a horrible law has been written but what kind of law. If nobody wants it, if there is no one to enforce it, why was it created? Was it created to cause a controversy to bring back the issue of “nullification?”
Then, secondly, we look at those who are complaining about this law but who backed the same thing for years. I don’t take any of them seriously, they were phonies, thieves and liars before and now they plan on saving us all from evil, it reminds me of something I learned when I was a Republican lobbyist.
December 31st, 2011
American Civil Liberties Union
by: Amanda Simon
President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) today, allowing indefinite detention to be codified into law. As you know, the White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill. While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use it and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations.
The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.
Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.
October 19, 2011
By Lucy Madison
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney continued to defend his Massachusetts health care plan in Tuesday’s Republican presidential debate, reiterating for the umpteenth time his pledge to repeal “Obamacare” if elected and disputing charges that he lacks conservative credibility on the issue.
“You just don’t have credibility, Mitt, when it comes to repealing Obamacare,” charged fellow candidate Rick Santorum during a heated exchange in Las Vegas. “Your plan was the basis for Obamacare. Your consultants helped Obama craft Obamacare. And to say that you’re going to repeal it, you just — you have no track record on that that that we can trust you that you’re going to do that.”
Romney argued that the law he signed while Massachusetts governor was specific to the state – and that he never believed that it or anything like it should necessarily be imposed on the nation as a whole.
GOP debate in Vegas: Winners and losers
“I was in interviews in this debate stage with you four years ago. I was asked about the Massachusetts plan, was it something I’d impose on the nation? And the answer is absolutely not,” Romney told Santorum. “It was something crafted for a state. And I’ve said time and again, Obamacare is bad news. It’s unconstitutional. It costs way too much money, a trillion dollars. And if I’m president of the United States, I will repeal it for the American people.”
The former Massachusetts governor added that voters in his state supported his health care program three-to-one, and that the plan was a response to a state-specific need.
“We dealt with a challenge that we had; a lot of people that were expecting government to pay their way,” he said. “And we said, you know what? If people have the capacity to care for themselves and pay their own way, they should.”
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich also hammered Romney for his health care plan, noting that while likening “Romneycare” to “Obamacare” was “not a fair charge,” the Massachusetts plan was essentially “one more big government, bureaucratic, high-cost system, which candidly could not have been done by any other state because no other state had a Medicare program as lavish as yours, and no other state got as much money from the federal government under the Bush administration for this experiment.”
“There’s a lot as big government behind Romneycare,” Gingrich added. “Not as much as Obamacare, but a heck of a lot more than your campaign is admitting.”
Referencing the Newt Gingrich-affiliated Heritage Foundation’s onetime support for the individual health care mandate, Romney fired back: “Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you!”
“That’s not true,” responded Gingrich. “You got it from the Heritage Foundation.”
Gingrich added: “What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.”
“And you never supported them?” Romney pressed on: “Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate?”
“I absolutely did with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare,” Gingrich said.
“OK. That’s what I’m saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation,” Romney concluded.
“OK,” Gingrich conceded. “A little broader.”
Romney’s support for the Massachusetts health care plan has been a constant source of criticism throughout his campaign, and he has repeatedly tried to distance himself from the accusation that President Obama used Romney’s plan as the basis for his own controversial law.
On Tuesday, he continued his efforts to deflect that criticism.
“The best way to make markets work is for people to be able to buy their own products from private enterprises,” he said. “What we did was right for our state, according to the people in our state. And the great thing about a state solution to a state issue is, if people don’t like it, they could change it.”
August 4th, 2011
By: Mike Adams
Keep up the great work, NaturalNews readers! In the hours following the public protests and global attention being paid to the Rawesome Food raids, an LA County Judge reduced James Stewart’s bail from $123,000 to $30,000. By all indications, James Stewart will be out of jail Friday morning (if not sooner). A condition of his release is that he not engage in the sale of unpasteurized milk and cheese — a condition which is, by itself, completely unconstitutional and a violation of natural law. But nevertheless, this is the condition being set by the LA County courts.
In addition, Victoria Bloch, the L.A. liaison to the Weston A. Price Foundation, has been released and is reportedly at home this evening. We hope to speak with Victoria Friday in a phone interview and bring you her report, if she’s ready to share that story publicly. This ordeal has no doubt been extremely stressful for all those involved, and it’s nowhere near over: The charges of conspiracy against all three persons (James, Victoria, Sharon) still exist and will reportedly be prosecuted by a special “environmental prosecutor” from the FDA. (We are still working on confirming that tip so we can’t 100% support that yet…)
You are making a difference! NaturalNews wishes to thank Alex Jones (www.InfoWars.com), Matt Drudge (www.DrudgeReport.com) and RT America (http://rt.com/usa) for covering this news and having me on as a guest. You can watch my segments on Alex Jones at:
In addition, and perhaps most importantly, I wish to THANK YOU, the NaturalNews readers who have joined in this fight for food freedom by sharing our stories, donating money to the Rawesome Foods legal defense fund (over $7,000 collected so far and counting), protesting in person at the LA County Courthouse, and calling your state and federal representatives to drive home the point that We the People will not tolerate this kind of government terrorism against farmers and raw dairy buyer’s clubs!
You are making a difference! Already, the bail has been reduced for James Stewart and it looks like he’ll be free on Friday (at least until the 13 felony charges are leveled against him, which is when the real legal bills start to add up). We are not going to stop hammering this issue. Here at NaturalNews, we will see this through, and we will continue to ask for you help in reminding the bureaucratic tyrants in Sacramento, California and Washington D.C. that they cannot use our farmers for target practice!
Hands off our farms, dammit!
If people want to buy raw milk knowing full well that there is a tiny fraction of a percentage of risk that the milk might make them sick, then let ‘em buy the milk! Doesn’t raw fish have a warning that could be used for raw milk? Isn’t downhill skiing dangerous? Isn’t swimming in a public pool far more dangerous than drinking raw milk? And what about the dangers of eating aspartame, MSG, hydrogenated oils and chemical food preservatives? Why are all the government agencies okay with all those poisons but not okay with people eating real food that might, on extremely rare occasions, cause someone to have an upset stomach?
I am sick of our nanny state Big Government bureaucrats trying to intervene in our private lives to the point where parents are barred from packing their children’s school lunches… or where parents are restricted from buying raw goat’s milk to provide nutrition for infant babies whose mothers cannot breastfeed. With the Rawesome Foods raids, our government is stealing food from babies and then charging people with felony crimes for daring to provide such wholesome food in the first place!
NaturalNews continues to bring you the cutting-edge news from the front lines on this story, and we plan to cover every significant development in this story as quickly as we can, so keep checking our home page for updates throughout the day Friday (and beyond).
July 25th, 2011
The Raw Story
By: Eric W. Dolan
Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura lambasted Friday at a federal court hearing “un-American” security procedures implemented at airports across the nation in 2010.
He filed a lawsuit with the Transportation Security Administration in January, claiming their use of pat down searches at airport security checkpoints is unconstitutional. Pioneer Press reported that a lawyer for Ventura argued in federal court that the searches violate his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable and unwarranted searches.
The Justice Department has filed a motion to have the lawsuit dismissed, claiming that the searches are legal and that they can only be challenged in a federal appeals court.
“In a free country, you should never feel comfortable being searched,” Ventura told the Justice Department lawyer Tamara Ulrich. “This is not the country I was born in. We’re a fascist nation now.”
The former professional wrestler had a titanium hip implanted in 2008 that sets off metal detectors at airport checkpoints. Since 2010, new TSA procedures require him to undergo invasive physical pat down searches when he sets off the device.
The body imaging scanners and pat down procedure implemented by the TSA have received intense scrutiny amid reports of travelers feeling humiliated and traumatized.
October 13th, 2010
By: Ethan A. Huff
Vaccines are implicated in causing all sorts of health damage, from neurological disorders like autism and Alzheimer’s disease to intestinal problems like ulcerative colitis and Chron’s disease — and everything in between. And a vaccine injury case currently before the Supreme Court could be the landmark decision that once again allows those injured by vaccines to sue vaccine manufacturers for damages, a course of action that has been barred since 1986 because of special federal protections enacted to immunize vaccine manufacturers against having to abide by the rule of law.
Nearly 25 years ago, the U.S. Congress passed the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which exempts vaccine manufacturers from being liable for damages caused by their vaccines. The Act established an entirely new “legal” system to deal specifically with vaccine injury cases, handling each one in a special “vaccine court” that essentially just dismisses most cases as unwarranted.
The Act is entirely unconstitutional as no company or entity can legally be exempted from due process within the real legal system, but it was enacted anyway and has served as a shelter for vaccine companies to hide behind in order to avoid costly litigation. And since the medical industry as a whole continues to deny a link between vaccines and autism, for instance, the “vaccine courts” can just automatically go along with the notion and arbitrarily reject all autism-related vaccine cases as unsubstantiated.
But all that could change, depending on how the Supreme Court handles a case currently before it involving a young lady whose parents say she became permanently injured by a diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (DPT) vaccine called Tri-Immunol that she received when she was a child. The Bruesewitz’s say that Wyeth, the manufacturer of the DTP vaccine, knew about a safer version of the vaccine, but continued to sell the dangerous one anyway. Now their daughter Hannah requires costly, specialized care for the rest of her life.
The case was first rejected in “vaccine court” when just a month before the case was to be heard, the court removed all the reported severe injuries from the list of compensatory items. After then taking the case to civil courts, the Bruesewitz’s were told that the case was automatically invalid because of the federal Vaccine Act. So now the case sits before the Supreme Court where, if determined in the Bruesewitz’s favor, will set a new precedent whereby vaccine manufacturers will no longer be able to avert the rule of law.
The illegitimacy of ‘vaccine court’
Much like the phony Internal Revenue Service (IRS) “tax courts”, “vaccine courts” have no justifiable basis anywhere in the law. They serve as nothing more than a way for drug companies to avoid having to bear responsibility for the harm caused by their vaccines. Any other person or company must go through the standard legal process, but the federal Vaccine Act literally grants special legal immunity to vaccine makers that nobody else receives.
There are a few cases where “vaccine courts” have ruled in favor of plaintiffs, but such cases are likely just a ploy to trick the public into thinking such courts are legitimate and lawful. Most cases are rejected by “vaccine court” and, even though plaintiffs can then take the case to civil courts, the process has been made very difficult because of the federal Vaccine Act.
Even though $154 million was paid in 2010 for “vaccine court” cases, that amount is a mere fraction of the overall profits vaccine companies rake in every year. And truth be told, vaccine manufacturers do not even pay such settlements.
Vaccine companies don’t even injury settlements, the public does!
Of the few cases that are actually ruled in favor of injured plaintiffs in “vaccine courts”, not a single one of them is paid for by the vaccine manufacturers that cause the harm. A special excise tax is collected when vaccines are sold to the public, which is later used as settlement compensation. This means that insurance companies and ultimately the public end up paying for vaccine settlements while the vaccine manufacturers get off scot-free!
So not only are vaccine manufacturers essentially exempted from the real legal system, but the mock legal system set up in their favor actually guards them from having to pay a single cent for damages caused by their products.
It’s time to end the vaccine racket
Proponents of special legal protection for vaccine manufacturers say that it is necessary to protect them from “undue” litigation. But that is precisely what the real court system is for in the first place: to evaluate cases and determine whether or not a defendant is liable for damages. Setting up special “vaccine courts” that bypass due process is tyranny in the name of medicine, and it is simply unacceptable.
Because of “vaccine courts”, the idea that vaccines are in any way related to causing autism has been dismissed all across the board, even though numerous studies and research data continue to suggest a connection. And in the case of Hannah Bruesewitz, the system permits gross negligence on the part of vaccine manufacturers to go unpunished, unless of course the Supreme Court decides to do the right thing.