The US Constitution vs Mandates
The WHO wants the power to declare pandemics and mandates of lockdowns and vaccines worldwide. Will our Constitution withstand this challenge?
Behind closed doors, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Health Assembly (WHA) adopted the International Health Regulations (IHR). These elites that were not elected by the American people have been attempting to undermine the Constitutions of the US and of other countries. Specifically, the latest amendments to the IHR were adopted on May 27, 2022, and more power grabbing mischief is in the works. The language at the top of page 2 at that link lays the power grab fairly naked.
Are US citizens obligated to comply with aspiring international “public health” tyrants?
Incursion into US sovereignty is in violation of the US Constitution, of course, and of federal statute 5 USC 137, which prohibits and nullifies treaties or laws made by any party that are in violation of the US Constitution. Therefore, because these WHO / IHR assertions against US (and other countries’) national sovereignty (with regard to human health matters) were already a priori nullified, there should not be any problem or threat. That is, unless our government is corrupt enough to sign or participate in such a treaty (which should still be nullified by the Constitution). But if our government is that corrupt, then the WHO / IHR power grab is only one of several catastrophic problems. Journalist James Roguski writes frequently on this topic of WHO and IHR creeping tyranny.
Lockdowns were a disaster, in the US and around the world, devastating for all ages and for the economic life of families and communities. The COVID vaccines have been an unmitigated genocide. I wrote the most thoroughly researched book on the hazards of the COVID vaccines, citing over 300 studies. These vaccines caused record-breaking morbidity and mortality in all heavily vaccinated countries, for which abundant, independent data keeps accumulating everyday.
Especially now that we know how bad those vaccines were, people need to have ways to avoid them, once tyrants begin coercing their next eye-of-newt, spiked-wing-of-bat toxic mRNA injections.
The Constitution is a bulwark against tyranny
Here is what I think is the important question in this arena:
The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits anyone from imposing a religion on other people. Is vaccination a religion? If so, can a religious exemption ever be denied?
Two Constitutional attorneys debated at UC Berkeley for an hour whether vaccines can be mandated under the US Constitution. Neither strongly alleges Constitutional prohibition of all vaccine mandates. However, even though they are attorneys, and I am not, I contend as follows that there is an absolute Constitutional prohibition of vaccine mandates in the US, which nullifies anyone’s obligation to obey them. (Remember, Mr. Jacobson, in the 1905 vaccine mandate case Jacobson v Massachusetts, was never forced to get the smallpox vaccine. When Jacobson chose to be fined instead, the Supreme Court fined him five dollars in lieu of the injection, about $171 today.)
The First Amendment 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 government for a redress of grievances.
The Establishment Clause is the very first clause of the very first Amendment to the US Constitution. It shields US citizens from any burden of adherence to religion imposed by others. It is a bulwark against another Middle Ages Inquisition, or 17th-Century style Salem witch trials.
Congress is prohibited by the First Amendment from creating a mandatory state religion.
Does it require an arena of lawyers and judges to parse the Establishment Clause? The wording seems quite straightforward. Therefore, none of us in the US are bound to obey any one religion; each is free to choose his or her own, or lack thereof. Although most religious people have chosen to follow the faith of their ancestors, many others have freely chosen a different religion for themselves.
Bullying and other coercion is sometimes exerted by certain institutions, employers, families and communities, but not one free citizen, since the writing of the Constitution, has been coerced by any federal law or by the Constitution to adhere to the religion of another.
Unless there exists another body of dogma, deities, sacraments and rituals, not typically carrying the label of religion, that people are coerced to undertake, including by government decree.
Vaccination is a more common sacrament than the sacrament of any organized religion, and it happens in all countries. No country has renounced vaccination in general or prohibited it altogether. Its proponents believe the dogma that the B cells stimulated by vaccination to produce antibodies are significant and even decisive in creating resilience to infectious disease, even though B cells comprise 0.004% of the cells in our blood, and only 5% of our white blood cells, all of which have essential and increasingly appreciated roles in immune function.
Sometimes there is government insistence on vaccine sacraments, which are not generally recognized as belonging to any particular religion. However, I argue below that vaccination is a de facto sacrament, and the belief in vaccination, that is, faith in its safety and effectiveness, is a de facto religious faith.
What constitutes a religion?
Merriam-Webster’s first two definitions are circular, and therefore of little help. The third definition of religion is: “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.”
Merriam-Webster defines sacrament, in its broader definition, to be a religious rite or observance comparable to a Christian sacrament. This is a bit circular. So let’s look at “rite” or “ritual.”
The broader definition of rite is a ceremonial act or action. Ritual is defined as “ceremonial, according to religious law, or done in accordance with social custom or normal protocol.”
(Please note how many of the following words in bold below are generally considered specific to religions, but have become tangible features of the practice and belief in vaccination.)
Vaccination consists of this ritual: the practice of going to a doctor, clinic or pharmacy at an appointed time, to receive an injection by the anointed clergy (licensed healthcare professional), of a substance that has received the blessings of the high deities (FDA approval or authorization), that has been given the widely respected (and also widely disrespected) name of vaccine, along with reassurance by such clergy of the following dogma.
The dogma holds that depositing animal or plant and/or microbial proteins and some inorganic toxic materials as well (adjuvants) deep below the body’s primary and largest defenses (skin and mucous membranes) will supersede the effect of those defenses, as well as the innate ability of the body to rise to impervious resilience against disease.
The pro-vaccine dogma also holds that a deposit of these foreign antigens into the blood will magically migrate to respiratory mucosa, even though blasphemous immunologists have shown that the antibodies stimulated by the vaccines, IgG antibodies are relatively large, or 14.5 nanometers long, larger than the barrier to the lung airspace in a healthy person. And we have known this for half a century. Therefore, vaccinating a healthy person against a respiratory disease is a waste of time, as we have seen from several decades of worthless flu shots.
But the pro-vaccine dogma rejects such blasphemy.
Rather, the supplicant at a vaccine clinic or pharmacy is expected by the clergy to show faith in the ritual by not asking blasphemous questions, not asking to read the product package insert, not asking about the clinical trials, not asking about long-term side effects, as heretics might ask, but rather to express appreciation for being protected against a particular disease, for which the sacrament vaccine has been named.
The above centuries-old practice is not formally called a religion. But is there substantial difference between that ceremonial ritual that is based in dogma, on the one hand, and other widely recognized religions? Granted, the deities of the former have somewhat less stature than in the latter institutions, and the former does not concern itself with explaining what happens after death, as do the latter institutions. Otherwise, there is a comparable clergy class in each that administers sacraments to the masses, which helps to redeem them from dreaded outcomes (disease in one faith, hell in another).
In this article, I argue that vaccination further qualifies as a religion, because of consecration, which, by a mystical process, in inner-sanctum laboratories, inaccessible to the masses, transubstantiates an otherwise ordinary synthetic chemical and biohazard swill into an immune-enhancing potion. This process then prepares the consecrated liquid for use as a sacrament. And the two-centuries-long ritual continues, despite the growing science of immunology, which has overwhelmingly disproven vaccination’s most fervent tenets, as we learn ever more about the innate immune system, which is never enhanced and is arguably thwarted by vaccination.
In that same article, I argue that religious exemption from vaccination does not have to be a positive assertion, ie ‘I have a religion, and my religion prohibits any vaccination.’
Rather, religious exemption should also logically include the possibility of a negative assertion such as this: ‘I am not a member of the vaccination religion, so I do not believe in its teachings, and I do not take its sacraments. So no thanks.’
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Therefore, when you assert your non-participation in a religion, its dogma, sacraments and rituals, and your disinterest in that religion’s clergy and consecration rituals, then you should be good to go, able to walk away freely, without harassment or stalking by government entities or international control freaks.
US courts have strongly upheld the separation of church and state, ever since the adoption of the First Amendment. In colonial Virginia, Baptists protested having to pay taxes to the Anglican church. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison responded to them by urging a “wall of separation’ between church and state. Citizen’s natural rights to religious liberty were violated, they argued, when forced to pay taxes to religious institutions that they did not follow.
Then, nearly a century after the Constitution was written, the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. Its Equal Protections Clause established equality of rights among people.
“. . . No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. . . .”
Therefore, just because the pro-vaccine community is obscenely-funded, shrill, insistent, constantly propagandizing and menacing, does not mean that their religion is any more valid than yours, even if you don’t have a religion.
Sincerity over piety
The Supreme Court has upheld “sincerely held religious belief,” not necessarily regular worship service attendance, as qualifying for declaration of religious determination, in the Ballard case 322 US 78 (1944) and later in the US EEOC vs IBP case, in relation to employment. Over a century of case law in the US upholds choice to reject a medical treatment – including that choice made by people on the basis of religion.
Who is to declare the religious beliefs of an ostentatiously pious worshipper to be superior to the quiet prayers and feelings and beliefs of modest people? A “sincerely held religious belief” is more persuasive in the Supreme Court. If you sincerely believe that vaccination is an assault against a creature of God or nature, then let’s say so when the topic is raised. If you sincerely believe that you would no more take a sacrament of the vaccinators’ religion than of the Neptune Planetary Faith religion (which I just made up), simply because it is not your religion, and you likely don’t have that much interest in Neptune either, and therefore would be an insincere gesture, then I think the Founding Fathers and their, and our, Constitution have your back on that.
What a fantastic essay. You’re right, the vaccine adherents are practicing a religion which can’t be forced on anyone without violating our Constitution.
This is the hill to die on, or rather, not die on, that is.
How about, thank you, a literal read of 14th amend.
Harmacide is an abridgement of my immunities....
My natural immunities are the ones I choose, not the scamdemic needlerape