Something just happened in Oregon … and it’s not about hunting.
(twitter.com)
💉 Mental/Physical NCSWIC
Comments (25)
sorted by:
Until mail in voting is gone Washington, Oregon and California are occupied territory.
Agree
Agree 100%
They will still be occupied , only the Iron Dildo control will be corrected.
I would say "despoiled," but that would be picking nits.
But who pays attention to the Constitution? Even here, during the covid mess when people were begging for help to get out of their job mandated shots, they wouldn't listen when I kept telling them over and over and over again to use the CONSTITUTION. That's ALL they needed. I have to wonder how many people even know what it is. (It's the Supreme Law of our land, fyi.) After all, I remember the fren here who didn't even know that it takes BOTH houses of congress to pass a bill into law!! What hope do we have when people don't even know the most basic of basics.
That's a primary function of why we are here. To learn. Or would you prefer someone not get informed about the Constitution and how this government of ours operates. Be patient Patriot we all get there together.
The thing is, it is a requirement to understand and know the Constitution to become a citizen, and to run for office.
Also, too many people "know" things that are simply not correct. Especially in regards to the Constitution.
They knew is the thing. Someone is going to have to cough up some big bucks and I would bet the government and Big Pharma are BOTH going to get busted.
Well, if that was truly the case at least 3/4 of those currently holding public office should be out of a job. Look at AOC.
It is truly the case. Unfortunately, no one is forcing government to operate within its charter.
That was my point. No enforcement. Most of them don't follow the Constitution and almost just as many don't even know what it is other than some old piece of paper sitting in a museum collecting dust. They only reference the Constitution as part of campaigns or public grandstanding while not following it in application. Not only do these officials not follow the Constitution, their constituents in their own ignorance on how a Constitutional Republic is supposed to function, do not hold their elected officials accountable when they don't operate by it.
I remember I was told my denied religious exemption form was "too constitutional". I'm pretty sure this wouldn't help me though since it hinges on the state issued license. That brings the constitution into play. I'm pretty sure I need the jabs to be proven part of the giant RICO case on election fraud, but that'll be a long time coming.
As I said to LibertyLightBringer, I begged pedes here NOT to use a religious exemption but to use the Constitution itself. I even laid out the exact articles and paragraphs to use, which were later used in a major lawsuit against universities that was won. I don't think anybody here paid any heed to what I suggested. Always, always fall back on the Constitution. It is our 'guarantee' of our rights.
So far I'm only seeing wins against the government or quasi government institutions like universities.
There were ways to win against private institutions as well. For instance, an employer can't require you to take an experimental medication against your will. They are not medical doctors and can't 'prescribe' a medication for you. That's illegally practicing medicine without a license.
That sounds like it could work someday when the courts are less corrupt, but it's not a constitutional issue so far as I can tell. Fighting the private institutions will probably need to show they didn't follow the legislated laws. I think... I'm obviously not a lawyer.
There were no legislated laws. That's the point. Mandates are not laws.
I protested under "religious grounds" for not getting vaccinated. I've no doubt this further moved me up a 'list of people to degrade even further. About a year and a half later when a small group of people to let go came out, I was not only in it but a written reprimand for being warned not to o spread conspiracy theories on work time was included. Are we at the point of having ANY clean courts and good lawyes yet?
I BEGGED pedes here not to use religious grounds but the Constitution. I even laid out the very articles and paragraphs to use, which, btw were later used in a big lawsuit against universities in multiple states ... and they WON. And no, we are not at the point of clean courts. Not by far. Maybe a few here and there. If you face a judge in court, you must first clarify with him, "Sir, I take it that it is true that you and the other court officials have all sworn an oath to the Constitution and will thereby rule on those grounds?" That puts them on notice that you have expectations that they uphold their oath. And if they don't, you should take action.
Until people learn the "guided psyops" they use against us constantly as well as understand how many local schemers being used against them, it's difficult to navigate all the legalese they also throw in. Thanks for the input.
It might be difficult, but it's not impossible. The Constitution is your friend, fren.
All those bankrupt businesses they shut down were victims of violation of the 'takings clause'.
Also in violation of international laws
https://research.unc.edu/human-research-ethics/resources/ccm3_019064/
Sez Grok for those (like me) whose became immediately lost in the legalese:
Simplified facts from the post:
The U.S. Supreme Court has asked the State of Oregon to respond to a petition (docket 25-1280) in a case challenging a state requirement that healthcare professionals (e.g., nurses) be injected with an investigational/experimental drug (COVID-19 vaccines under Emergency Use Authorization) and waive rights to sue for injuries, as a condition of keeping their professional license to work.
Key elements of the legal question presented (from the petition):
The post argues:
Oregon (and the 9th Circuit) overreached by claiming a state right to mandate such drugs, which allegedly violates federal law.
COVID-19 vaccines were under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) or similar investigational status, with liability shields (e.g., PREP Act).
This implicates broader issues like informed consent, federal preemption over investigational products, and whether states can override federal protections for experimental drugs.
The Supreme Court requesting a response is described as a rare/significant step, potentially signaling interest in the case.
Brief context for law-abiding U.S. citizens:
This could be important because it tests the limits of government power to impose medical mandates tied to livelihood, especially for products with liability protections and limited testing/consent requirements during emergencies.
A ruling could:
Reinforce individual rights to bodily autonomy and informed consent (e.g., refusing experimental products without losing one's job or license).
Clarify boundaries between state public health authority and federal rules on investigational drugs/EUA.
Affect future pandemic responses, professional licensing, and accountability for mandates — protecting citizens from compelled medical interventions that carry risks, while balancing public health needs.
It may open avenues for challenges to past mandates or set precedents limiting overreach, though outcomes depend on the Court's eventual decision (this is still at the petition/response stage).
Always consult legal experts for personal situations.