[Rushtalk] Forced Vaccinations
John A. Quayle
quaylejohn at aol.com
Sat Aug 7 02:18:36 MDT 2021
U.S. Supreme Court has made several decisions that favor you:
Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18, 45 S. Ct. 446 (1925): “Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government.”
Lambert v. Yellowly, 272 U.S. 581, 598, 47 S.Ct. 210 (1926): “It is important also to bear in mind that ‘direct control of medical practice in the States is beyond the power of the Federal Government.’ Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18. Congress, therefore, cannot directly restrict the professional judgment of the physician or interfere with its free exercise in the treatment of disease. Whatever power exists in that respect belongs to the states exclusively.”
Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629, 639 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Linder).Lower circuit:United States v. Anthony et al., 15 F. Supp. 553 (S.D.Cal. 1936) (June 23 1936)Nos. 12069-12072. United States District Court, S.D. California, Central Division“I am referring to these facts in order to indicate that we must bear in mind the purpose of the act — that the act is a borderline statute which must be interpreted in such a manner as to bring it within the constitutional power. And if we depart from it and interpret it either as attempting to regulate the disposition and sale of narcotics or attempting the regulation of medicine, we extend the act to the realm which the Supreme Court has repeatedly said the federal government cannot enter, under the penalty of unconstitutionality.
“The Linder Case (Linder v. United States  268 U.S. 5, 45 S.Ct. 446, 449, 69 L.Ed. 819, 39 A.L.R. 229) is very important. We all seem to agree, whether we read it alike or not, that it determines this case, so far as the law is concerned. I wish to refer to it for the present only for the purpose of pointing out that the moment we assume that this act regulates the sale within the state of narcotics and that it aims to regulate the practice of medicine, we must hold it unconstitutional.”
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Rushtalk