COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates Are Illegal, But It's Not Being Argued Properly In The Courts

originally posted by: LanceCorvette
No one is forcing anyone to get the vaccine. Not sure the point of this post.

Then you're not paying attention to the whole post, because it's spelled out very clearly and directly.

t.almost 30 years lawyer reading and applying complex federal statutes.

Gotta read the whole statute, pal. This reads like something a kid fresh out of law school would write because s/he saw a lawyer on t.v. do it.

Yeah, that's neat. There are good and bad lawyers, pal, even at 30 years into the job (I work directly with quite a few AUSAs in my day job that are not good at what they do). Appealing to your time in job doesn't do much when you respond with a comment like this, sport.

Here's the rest of the statute you ignore:

of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product,

The law contemplates that there could be consequences to an individual who refuses a vaccine. That's why all the cases are being lost.

Buddy, you are pretty poor at reading for a 30-year attorney. Let me show you where I didn't ignore that, at all, in the least, and actually quoted it and discussed it:

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
The problem is, none of the parties who have brought suit against these mandates is arguing this in court, and it has NEVER been argued in court. The supposed issue comes in with the language in the statue that reads, "...of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product..." Now, this is rather ambiguous to some people, where they say that "consequences" can deal with things like not being able to obtain or retain employment, or gain access to a university, or travel on a plane. I would argue that people who subscribe to this line of thinking fall under the authoritarian point of view.

The non-authoritarians (and, IMO, just plain logical people) see that verbiage as meaning that the "consequences" refer to medical consequences, such as increased odds of contracting the disease or spreading it or succumbing to severe symptoms.

These two points of view need to be dissected and the verbiage needs to be defined by a court of law at this point, as I believe that this holds the key to determining if ANY future and current mandated products or treatments administered under an EUA are legal.

If you are an attorney, you would not be one that I would seek out for any legal issue that I had, based on your reading comprehension alone.

no star, no flag

Damn, that almost hurt my feelings?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Looks like you lopped off part of that sentence "...of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product...".

The whole message seems to be "you must be informed that you can say no but you also must be informed about the consequences of saying no".
That seems to be saying that you are bound to whatever those consequences might be.

Are you another person who quit reading before the end of the OP.

I addressed that, and even quoted it, so no, I didn't lop off anything.

Read the whole thing, people. THE. WHOLE. THING.

Or might I suggest not replying if you do.

a reply to: ntech

And, like the cases that I noted in the OP, yours would go nowhere.

originally posted by: daskakik
I'm pointing out a part of the sentence in the law, left out of the highlights in the OP, which plainly states that someone who says no might face consequences.

And again...no, you weren't pointing out anything that I left out, you are exposing the fact that you didn't read the rest of the OP once you THOUGHT that I left something out.

Again, read the whole thing and pay attention, please. Willfuly ignorance is still ignorance.

originally posted by: AcrobaticDreams
Let’s say an employer mandates a vax, they will say it is their right to do so and the person can find a job somewhere else if they find it objectionable . The person has a RIGHT to refuse the Vax, the employer isn’t forcing them to get one. They’re just saying you will have to work somewhere else. So I don’t think the OP’s post would stand.

Let's just say that the OP (me) was more than obvious that my argument is specifically concerning vaccines that are only approved under an Emergency-Use Authorization, which is the ONLY time that it is specified that treatments (in this case, the COVID-19 vaccine) must be treated as voluntary.

It's a special scenario, and the reason that this was put into the statue was because those who wrote it understood that any entity should not be allowed to force someone to undergo a medical treatment that is, for all intents and purposes, an experimental treatment not fully vetted and approved by the FDA.

When you use that obviously specified scenario in my OP and apply it to what I am actually arguing, it might make a little more sense to you.

And maybe it won't stand, but it has a hell of a lot better chance than arguing that it's a violation of the 14th Amendment, and it would force the courts to define what "consequences" actually means, and therefore it would remove the ambiguity for future issues like this.

Which is what I put in my OP...

originally posted by: Salander
Might you know the section of Title 21 that David Martin and others have alluded to, claiming that IF there is a successful therapy for any given disease, developing a vaccine for that disease is not authorized?

It's in the PDF to which I linked in the OP (it straddles pages 294 and 295):

(c) Criteria for issuance of authorization

The Secretary may issue an authorization under this section with respect to the emergency use of a product only if, after consultation with the Director of the National Institutes of Health and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (to the extent feasible and appropriate given the circumstances of the emergency involved), the Secretary concludes—

(3) that there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating such disease or condition;

The issue herein is that the statue specifies that the alternative treatments to the EUA vaccine need to be "approved" for treating the specific "disease or condition," and right now, I can't recall off of the top of my head ANY alternative that has been approved by the FDA specifically as a treatment against COVID-19. Of course, there are treatments being used, but I think that they are currently at the doctor's or hospital's discretion. I could be wrong on that, though.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Boadicea
And when one cites law, like the OP did, consequences are not limited to only natural ones.

Not all laws are punitive in nature. The law that I cited is an instructional law that puts guidelines and limitations on what the government can do, not limitations on what citizens cannot do.

You aren't making a correct argument for the discussion at hand.

Still the fact is that the law cited also mentions these unnatural consequences, so your argument is moot.

No, it doesn't mention unnatural consequences at all, just the word "consequences." That, again, is why I said that it needs to court to have "consequences" defined so that we can remove the ambiguity of it.

Your argument falls on the authoritarian assumption of the definition, and I would argue that's not a good place to be.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Thanks for that reference under Title 21.

It is interesting to me that for many years powerful psychotropic drugs have been prescribed off label to youngsters for various perceived behavioral issues. Teachers and school administrators have demanded that parents get drugs for their kids that are prescribed off label, having never been tested on kids.

Now with the Plandemic, the powers that be are making a big deal about prescribing Ivermectin off label because, well, it's off label prescribing.

The hypocrisy is no longer astounding. It has become typical behavior in the US of A.

originally posted by: LanceCorvette
No one is forcing anyone to get the vaccine. Not sure the point of this post.

If it's "muh my job is making me" there is still no force because one has the option to refuse the vaccine and, if there are job loss consequences, one must accept those also.

I am sick and tired of this stupid, flatulent argument.

Anyone who suggests that having to choose between a job that feeds their family and a potentially toxic injection into t heir body - a personal violation bot much different from rape - is just ... sad, sick, and deluded.

Your argument is equivalent to saying you wouldn't have a problem with companies requiring women who get pregnant on the job to get an abortion, or lose their job.

Like I said... sick, sad, and most of all, deluded.

Gotta read the whole statute, pal. This reads like something a kid fresh out of law school would write because s/he saw a lawyer on t.v. do it.

Here's the rest of the statute you ignore:

of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product,

The law contemplates that there could be consequences to an individual who refuses a vaccine. That's why all the cases are being lost.

Are there any examples of what is meant by 'consequences?

Because I read that as potential health consequences, not legal consequences.

Paul Harvey was apparently absolutely spot on with his 'the rest of the story' about 'lawyers'.

originally posted by: LanceCorvette
Here's the rest of the statute you ignore:

"of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product,"

The law contemplates that there could be consequences to an individual who refuses a vaccine. That's why all the cases are being lost.

Disingenuous much?

Here, Lance, is the rest of the statutthat you ignore:

"of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks."

That context, that you conveniently left out while attempting to ridicule someone else for doing the exact same thing you then did by not quoting the whole thing, makes it very clear that the only consequences contemplated are health related, not legal or political (job loss, access to public places, etc).

So, yes, I'd say, very disingenuous. I've seen many references from people asking about that made it appear you were decent person, but after this? You, sir, should be ashamed.

a reply to: SlapMonkey
Fair enough but your argument is weak.

It isn't vague, it is saying that the Secretary isn't the one involved in the consequences, "if any". It is up to other authorities and probably even private parties.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Not all laws are punitive in nature.

Didn't say they all were. I said that they exist.

No, it doesn't mention unnatural consequences at all, just the word "consequences." That, again, is why I said that it needs to court to have "consequences" defined so that we can remove the ambiguity of it.

Did you miss Bodiceas's post? Something about natural vs unnatural.

Your argument falls on the authoritarian assumption of the definition, and I would argue that's not a good place to be.

No, it falls on the assumption that the consequences covers actions by other authorities.

Come to think of it, if it means only natural consequences, that still does not protect anyone from other unnatural consequences imposed by others.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: SlapMonkey
It isn't vague, it is saying that the Secretary isn't the one involved in the consequences, "if any". It is up to other authorities and probably even private parties.

Show me exactly where it says that, because if it doesn't, you're attributing legal power to the statute that doesn't exist, and that's not how it works.

And the fact that you use the word "probably" is exactly why I'm arguing that it needs settled in court, and it reflects on the vagueness of the language. I don't understand why you won't accept that.

a reply to: SlapMonkey
My use of the word "probably" has no bearing on anything.

What you don't want to see is that the vagueness is intentional because that government body, the secretary, isn't the one who implements the consequences. The "if any", makes it clear that there can be but that the secretary has no way of knowing what they might be or where they will be applied.

There is nothing wrong with you thinking it needs settled in court, I just don't think it will turn out the way you are thinking.

a reply to: daskakik

But did I ever claim that it would turn out any certain way? I'm quite certain that I said...well, let me quote myself:

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
These two points of view need to be dissected and the verbiage needs to be defined by a court of law at this point, as I believe that this holds the key to determining if ANY future and current mandated products or treatments administered under an EUA are legal. We need this settled, and it needs to be settled sooner than later. And these attorneys who are arguing the incorrect issue in court are making things worse.

...

Here's to hoping that the next suit against an EUA-vaccine mandate is based on the proper premise that may actually have a chance at winning.

All I said is that using the proper basis for an argument that it's illegal "may actually have a chance at winning." I never said that it would, but it would be a better chance than how it's been presented to the courts so far.

Anyhoo, we'll agree to disagree with how you think that ambiguity makes things clear. Thanks for the debate, though.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
These two points of view need to be dissected and the verbiage needs to be defined by a court of law at this point, as I believe that this holds the key to determining if ANY future and current mandated products or treatments administered under an EUA are legal. We need this settled, and it needs to be settled sooner than later. And these attorneys who are arguing the incorrect issue in court are making things worse.

The bolded part seems to be the outcome you are after. Sure you said it would only have a chance of winning but that is based on the vagueness of the "consequences" being something that can/needs to be defined.

Anyhoo, we'll agree to disagree with how you think that ambiguity makes things clear. Thanks for the debate, though.

It seems the difference is that you are talking about clarity as far as what the consequences are and I'm talking about it being clear that the secretary has no say or way of knowing what state/county/city governments might implement as consequences but this law does recognize that local governments have the power to do that.

Since it isn't the secretary mandating or imposing consequences, and that is who this law is limiting, it would seem a moot point.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

If the courts are as corrupt as the legislative and executive branches are, there will be no justice found or delivered, no truth found or delivered, by such courts.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Hi, I'm sorry you've had such a tough time in this thread with all the argumentative post!

I absolutely agree with your OP - though, I don't have a legal background, I could see exactly what you're talking about when I started researching the lawsuits re: mandated vaccines.

I would very, very much like to have your opinion on the particular lawsuit outlined in a thread I made -

Here's a link to the OP: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thank you

a reply to: lostgirl

I just read the entirety of the motion (well, pages 1-59 in-depth, then skimmed through the rest until the Conclusion).

This is wonderful that they are finally pursuing this, and while they are arguing for something different that this post is concerned with, the reasoning runs parallel to it and encompasses things that I wanted to discuss but didn't feel I had the room (the OP was long enough...and some people couldn't even be bothered to read that).

They make some very good points backed by a lot of substantial studies, and I learned even more than I already knew about some of this stuff, which is always a good thing.

It never even occurred to me to argue the psychological conditioning that has been going on and how that negates a true ability to give "informed consent" as it pertains to the main paragraph of the statute that I discuss here. It's a very, VERY valid point to make, and hopefully isn't dismissed by the federal judge(s) who deal with this matter.

Thanks for the heads up on your thread, and thanks for starting it. This is a good thing.

Only a Morally Corrupt Individual would defend forced or coerced vaccinations ,if you can't understand why this is a Blatant Violation of Human Rights laws, then you're part of the problem