please check out the anti-mandate news »

« prev   random   next »

1
0

Proposed Constitutional Amendment

By Patrick follow Patrick   2021 Aug 4, 10:20am 224 views   24 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share    


No person may be compelled or coerced in any way, including but not limited to threat of job loss, exclusion from work site, expulsion from school, or exclusion from campus or classroom or place of business, to take any drug, specifically including but not limited to all vaccines. Nor may any person be required to wear a mask or to carry or show any identifying mark of having taken or not taken any drug. Nor many any drug maker ever be exempted from full liability for all of its own products. No federal, state, local, or other health authorities or other authorities may create any rules or regulations to the contrary, nor may any declaration of emergency conditions or war override this amendment.

Would you vote for that?

Can we improve it?

Especially interested in your opinion @HunterTits
2   HunterTits   ignore (4)   2021 Aug 4, 11:54am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Response.

In General: Constitutions should not have much in it that is this specific. Because that tends to blow up in the original intenders face or become mere footnotes.

The Prohibition amendment is a good example. The only amendment that was repealed by another amendment. The 3rd amendment is an example of the footnotes.

Nor may any person be required to wear a mask or to carry or show any identifying mark of having taken or not taken any drug.

State or Federal level? Because the 9th and 10th amendments gave the states this policing power for a reason. The powers and restrictions upon the Federal government are very explicit. As are the restrictions on the States. But the powers granted to the state minus those restrictions are infinite.

Nor many any drug maker ever be exempted from full liability for all of its own products

Then you won't see many vaccines released at all. Let alone anti-cancer drugs, etc.

Many vaccines were released..esp initially...with immunity. Esp in emergencies.

The real issue is tort reform, not this.

You want a constitutional amendment that will cover this and lots else?

Push for one that greatly slims down sovereign immunity coverage for government officials and third-parties doing their bidding (even if forced). Where the fuck is sovereign immunity even MENTIONED in the Constitution in the first place? No where. It was barfed up by the courts.

THEN you'll see crazy and tyrannical bullshit like this and others get stopped in its tracks for the most part.

We'll all be living freer lives as a result also.
3   DonewithDebate   ignore (14)   2021 Aug 4, 12:00pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Patrick says
No person may be compelled or coerced in any way, including but not limited to threat of job loss, exclusion from work site, expulsion from school, or exclusion from campus or classroom or place of business, to take any drug, specifically including but not limited to all vaccines. Nor may any person be required to wear a mask or to carry or show any identifying mark of having taken or not taken any drug. Nor many any drug maker ever be exempted from full liability for all of its own products. No federal, state, local, or other health authorities or other authorities may create any rules or regulations to the contrary, nor may any declaration of emergency conditions or war override this amendment.

Would you vote for that?

Can we improve it?

Especially interested in your opinion @HunterTits


@patrick
Without honest medical system this will be a difficult to implement.
Let us assume the company shows that its other vaccinated employees are under "threat of catching infection" due to unvaccinated people causing it financial harm and also can be sued for dangerous workplace by affected people.
How about rights of company to protect its interests?.. Can we take it away?

The solution is to fight this with medical establishment and CDC to show that vaccine is dangerous.. Not bother with harassing small or medium sized businesses... all they are doing is safeguarding their interests based on medical recommendations.
4   Ceffer   ignore (6)   2021 Aug 4, 12:10pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

I think the problem arises from distinguishing fake pandemics used for political purposes and tyranny vs. real pandemics. Any amendment would need to distinguish between the two and provide severe penalties for anybody abusing the public trust.

These guys really don't care that they have squandered the credibility of the government and medicine doing this. That's part of the insanity.
5   rocketjoe79   ignore (1)   2021 Aug 4, 12:21pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Ceffer says
I think the problem arises from distinguishing fake pandemics used for political purposes and tyranny vs. real pandemics. Any amendment would need to distinguish between the two and provide sever penalties for anybody abusing the public trust.

These guys really don't care that they have squandered the credibility of the government and medicine doing this. That's part of the insanity.


Since the ship of non-politicized science has sailed, science that can't be verified rather simply is no trustworthy. Now we are expected to believe "consensus science" which is exactly the OPPOSITE of how science works. For example, plate tectonics was dismissed for decades before becoming accepted as the right science.

They're trying to get us to believe there is "consensus" about masks, but I don't believe it at all. We do know masks were ineffective in 1917 during the last serious global pandemic.
6   SunnyvaleCA   ignore (1)   2021 Aug 4, 12:24pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Patrick says
Nor many any drug maker ever be exempted from full liability for all of its own products.
If nobody is required to take the product (as per the first part of your proposal), I don't see the need to have the liability clause. As long as the citizens know the product is exempt from liability, they can just choose to not use the product.
7   ForcedTQ   ignore (0)   2021 Aug 4, 12:29pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Patrick says
No person may be compelled or coerced in any way, including but not limited to threat of job loss, exclusion from work site, expulsion from school, or exclusion from campus or classroom or place of business, to take any drug, specifically including but not limited to all vaccines. Nor may any person be required to wear a mask or to carry or show any identifying mark of having taken or not taken any drug. Nor many any drug maker ever be exempted from full liability for all of its own products. No federal, state, local, or other health authorities or other authorities may create any rules or regulations to the contrary, nor may any declaration of emergency conditions or war override this amendment.

Would you vote for that?

Can we improve it?

Especially interested in your opinion @HunterTits


This is important, and should be added to all state constitutions. The Federal Government was never given the charge to deal with medical issues in an article or section of the constitution, so for that point it is moot. Federal dictates on health concerns are already unconstitutional.
8   Patrick   ignore (1)   2021 Aug 4, 12:32pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

SunnyvaleCA says
Patrick says
Nor many any drug maker ever be exempted from full liability for all of its own products.
If nobody is required to take the product (as per the first part of your proposal), I don't see the need to have the liability clause. As long as the citizens know the product is exempt from liability, they can just choose to not use the product.


Thanks @SunnyvaleCA I see your point, but think it is important to have yet another safeguard against forced mass injections.

Requiring the drug companies to be liable is this kind of safeguard. They won't even propose mass injections with something as obviously dangerous as the jab if they themselves could easily be bankrupted by the consequences.

We need many layers of protection or they will just keep on using this hole in the system, where "medical need" turns into "demand for mass injections for the profit of Pfizer".
9   SunnyvaleCA   ignore (1)   2021 Aug 4, 12:40pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Your proposal seems to be a huge restriction to private businesses. Maybe your proposal should be limited only to government jobs/benefits/coercion.

Do you allow a business to require N95 masks when employees do asbestos removal or sanding of woodwork?

The government paid the cost of the vaccine, making it free to citizens. Is that a form of coercion? The government can't subsidize (partially or wholly) things it believes are beneficial to the nation?
10   SunnyvaleCA   ignore (1)   2021 Aug 4, 12:42pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Patrick says
Requiring the drug companies to be liable is this kind of safeguard. They won't even propose mass injections with something as obviously dangerous as the jab if they themselves could easily be bankrupted by the consequences.

Just take a page from the Trump business playbook: Each project is its own siloed business.

I'm all for your trying to stop the government in this type of coercive case, but I just think your proposed approach has some serious kinks.
11   Patrick   ignore (1)   2021 Aug 4, 12:45pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

SunnyvaleCA says
Your proposal seems to be a huge restriction to private businesses.


Being told to submit to the jab or be fired is a bigger restriction on human rights.

It has to apply to all employers, no coercion to take any drugs!

Employees should be able to waive their right to sue the employer in return for the right not to wear a mask while removing asbestos. Freedom!

I don't care about subsidy or not. I care about being forced to submit to an injection that has killed more than 20,000 people in Europe alone and probably has massive other harmful effects:



https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/leaky-vaccines-enhance-spread-of-deadlier-chicken-viruses
12   Patrick   ignore (1)   2021 Aug 4, 1:01pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

SunnyvaleCA says
Just take a page from the Trump business playbook: Each project is its own siloed business.

I'm all for your trying to stop the government in this type of coercive case, but I just think your proposed approach has some serious kinks.



@SunnyvaleCA I don't konw what you mean by "Each project is its own siloed business."

And yes, there probably are some kinks, and that's what I'm hoping to help fix with this thread.

I think the large majority will agree to this amendment if it can be phrased right and is well thought out. No one likes the idea of being injected against their will via employer or school pressure.

Well, almost no one. Authoritarian leftists absolutely love it.
13   DonewithDebate   ignore (14)   2021 Aug 4, 1:06pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Patrick says
SunnyvaleCA says
Just take a page from the Trump business playbook: Each project is its own siloed business.

I'm all for your trying to stop the government in this type of coercive case, but I just think your proposed approach has some serious kinks.



@SunnyvaleCA I don't konw what you mean by "Each project is its own siloed business."

And yes, there probably are some kinks, and that's what I'm hoping to help fix with this thread.

I think the large majority will agree to this amendment if it can be phrased right and is well thought out. No one likes the idea of being injected against their will via employer or school pressure.

Well, almost no one. Authoritarian leftists absolutely love it.


Why should We bring burden to "businesses". They follow the law.
If government or courts held them responsible for any issues that happen with unvaccinated people.. They don't want this trouble.

We should make amendment instead to make Govt and CDC folks personally responsible for unleashing terror on public.
14   Patrick   ignore (1)   2021 Aug 4, 1:07pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

farmer2021 says
Why should We bring burden to "businesses".


Burden?

All I'm suggesting is that businesses not be allowed to force you to take any drug as a condition of employment.
15   DonewithDebate   ignore (14)   2021 Aug 4, 1:10pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Patrick says
farmer2021 says
Why should We bring burden to "businesses".


Burden?

All I'm suggesting is that businesses not be allowed to force you to take any drug as a condition of employment.


If somebody gets "COVID" and blame business for allowing un-vaccinated people and CDC/Govt sides with that guy.. This is burden on business.
I attended enough Govt. mandated trainings to know how much burden govt put on businesses... so the "fix" needs to happen in Govt.
16   Patrick   ignore (1)   2021 Aug 4, 1:14pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

I see your point.
17   SunnyvaleCA   ignore (1)   2021 Aug 4, 1:45pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Patrick says
Employees should be able to waive their right to sue the employer in return for the right not to wear a mask while removing asbestos. Freedom!

Current law (as bad as it is) requires employers to fund basic health care and disability coverage for the employees "at no cost" to the employees. How much will that company have to pay for health and disability insurance for that employee who refuses to ware protective gear while removing asbestos? That would be a financial disaster to the company and the company would probably find all sorts of ways to (illegally) boot the employee. Or maybe an employee waving their rights would also receive no "free" healthcare? But that sounds like "coercion" under your proposal.

Suppose an employee is incapacitated due to injury that could have easily been prevented with currently-required protective gear. What if that incapacitation results in the harm to a different employee or to a customer? (Perhaps smoke inhalation cases an employee to faint while operating a fork lift or steam roller ... the possibility are endless ... and gruesome!) Who pays for that? There's currently an enormous body of employment and business law around the duty of a business to take "reasonable precautions" to protect employees and customers. It seems that is getting thrown wholesale out the window.
18   Patrick   ignore (1)   2021 Aug 4, 3:19pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

SunnyvaleCA says
Current law (as bad as it is) requires employers to fund basic health care and disability coverage for the employees "at no cost" to the employees.


I'm pretty sure that's not true. I know lots of people who are required to pay at least a portion of their medical insurance, and disability is from a fund that employees are forced to pay into.

SunnyvaleCA says
How much will that company have to pay for health and disability insurance for that employee who refuses to ware protective gear while removing asbestos?


If the employee explicitly signed a statement taking full liability upon themselves, then the company would pay nothing.

But what we are talking about here is arbitrary and useless masks against viruses that go right through them, right?
19   SumatraBosch   ignore (9)   2021 Aug 4, 3:32pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

If you're not minimizing risk of infection from hoax by breathing through my dick, it ought to be a crime.
20   HunterTits   ignore (4)   2021 Aug 4, 4:04pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

SunnyvaleCA says
I don't see the need to have the liability clause. As long as the citizens know the product is exempt from liability, they can just choose to not use the product.


But they can be forced to by third parties. That is what is happening now.

Party A - You
Party B - Pharma who made the vaccine.

Party C - Your employer, HOA, school, other organs of the government, who-the-fuck-also-bunch-of-fascist-busybodies, etc.

This amendment proposal does what we really should not have to amend at all*: Declare that Party A can not be forced by Parties B & C to partake.

Standard Common & Contract Law*
21   Eric Holder   ignore (0)   2021 Aug 4, 4:19pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

HunterTits says
SunnyvaleCA says
I don't see the need to have the liability clause. As long as the citizens know the product is exempt from liability, they can just choose to not use the product.


But they can be forced to by third parties. That is what is happening now.

Party A - You
Party B - Pharma who made the vaccine.

Party C - Your employer, HOA, school, other organs of the government, who-the-fuck-also-bunch-of-fascist-busybodies, etc.



This is how they have been violating the 1st for a long time.
22   Eric Holder   ignore (0)   2021 Aug 4, 4:55pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

SunnyvaleCA says

Current law (as bad as it is) requires employers to fund basic health care and disability coverage for the employees "at no cost" to the employees. How much will that company have to pay for health and disability insurance for that employee who refuses to ware protective gear while removing asbestos? That would be a financial disaster to the company and the company would probably find all sorts of ways to (illegally) boot the employee. Or maybe an employee waving their rights would also receive no "free" healthcare? But that sounds like "coercion" under your proposal.


Let's extend this logic to other personal choices know to lead to bad health outcomes then, shall we? Like, say, fudgepacking - a well-known source of HIV infections and ass cancers? Or this would be not kosher?
23   SunnyvaleCA   ignore (1)   2021 Aug 4, 5:17pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Patrick says
But what we are talking about here is arbitrary and useless masks against viruses that go right through them, right?
Your original constitutional amendment was intended for covid masks, but it would seem to apply to a whole variety of situation above and beyond your intention.
24   Patrick   ignore (1)   2021 Aug 4, 5:20pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

OK @SunnyvaleCA how can we restated the amendment to be more specific to this particular injustice?

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions