Law quite literally defines itself. It is legal because it is legal. Laws are purposefully designed to remove individual liberties rather than protect them. Almost every law falls into that category. Indeed, the entire concept of law (as we currently define the term) falls into the category of removal of individual liberties.
More specifically, the medical industry (all one big fat monopoly) owns the legal system (also all one big fat monopoly). Indeed, both of those industries were created by Rockefeller. (in the 1890s-1910s for medicine, and in the 1920s-1930s for law). I mean, really they were always owned by the same Oligarchs, but they were formalized into a monopoly, through mergers, government contracts, and Rockefeller agent written laws during those times periods.
So how is it legal? Because it's the law, written by lawyers, all beholden to the people who run the medical industry, which gathers up about 25% of the GDP per year. They don't rake in that much cash because they are the "best there can be," but because "they are the only game in town," and because of the laws they write themselves to ensure they remain that way.
Great summary. I mean can’t choose to go an alternative treatment route with your own kid? It’s hard to wrap my head around that. Especially given the toxins and vaccines they pump us full of probably caused the cancer in the first place.
This is one reason Trump's Right To Try was so important. It must be permanently codified into law such that all rights belong to the patient and the parents who at will may grant some to the hospital and revoke at any time.
The Constitution isn't "constitutional." I mean, of course it is, but the Constitution itself doesn't live up to its pretense. More specifically, there is a fundamental (legal) disconnect between the flowery words of the DoI (the "spirit"), and the Constitution (the actual law).
As to whether or not this law is constitutional, that really doesn't have anything to do with the Constitution itself, but on whether or not the Supreme court determines it to be so. The Supreme Court has the Ultimate Authority in defining the Constitution, not the Constitution itself. That is only one of its fundamental flaws from which all method of legal fuckery emerges.
How is this legal? Putting a mother in prison for trying to treat her daughter with CBD oil? Since when do we have to 100% do what the doctor says?
Law quite literally defines itself. It is legal because it is legal. Laws are purposefully designed to remove individual liberties rather than protect them. Almost every law falls into that category. Indeed, the entire concept of law (as we currently define the term) falls into the category of removal of individual liberties.
More specifically, the medical industry (all one big fat monopoly) owns the legal system (also all one big fat monopoly). Indeed, both of those industries were created by Rockefeller. (in the 1890s-1910s for medicine, and in the 1920s-1930s for law). I mean, really they were always owned by the same Oligarchs, but they were formalized into a monopoly, through mergers, government contracts, and Rockefeller agent written laws during those times periods.
So how is it legal? Because it's the law, written by lawyers, all beholden to the people who run the medical industry, which gathers up about 25% of the GDP per year. They don't rake in that much cash because they are the "best there can be," but because "they are the only game in town," and because of the laws they write themselves to ensure they remain that way.
Great reply.
Great summary. I mean can’t choose to go an alternative treatment route with your own kid? It’s hard to wrap my head around that. Especially given the toxins and vaccines they pump us full of probably caused the cancer in the first place.
This is one reason Trump's Right To Try was so important. It must be permanently codified into law such that all rights belong to the patient and the parents who at will may grant some to the hospital and revoke at any time.
I think the question is it constitutional
The Constitution isn't "constitutional." I mean, of course it is, but the Constitution itself doesn't live up to its pretense. More specifically, there is a fundamental (legal) disconnect between the flowery words of the DoI (the "spirit"), and the Constitution (the actual law).
As to whether or not this law is constitutional, that really doesn't have anything to do with the Constitution itself, but on whether or not the Supreme court determines it to be so. The Supreme Court has the Ultimate Authority in defining the Constitution, not the Constitution itself. That is only one of its fundamental flaws from which all method of legal fuckery emerges.