[Rushtalk] Forced Vaccinations

Dennis Putnam dap1 at bellsouth.net
Sat Aug 7 07:44:06 MDT 2021


Whatever that has to do with anything. The Constitution went out the 
window on 1/20/21.

On 8/7/2021 4:18 AM, John A. Quayle via Rushtalk wrote:
> U.S. Supreme Court has made several decisions that favor you:
>
> /Linder v. United States/, 268 U.S. 5, 18, 45 S. Ct. 446 
> <http://openjurist.org/268/us/5/linder-v-united-states> (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/ 
> <http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/309/309.F3d.629.00-17222.html>, 
> 309 F.3d 629, 639 
> <http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/309/309.F3d.629.00-17222.html> 
> (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/ [1925] 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.”
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rushtalk mailing list
> Rushtalk at csdco.com
> http://galene.csd.net/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://galene.csd.net/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20210807/3a8b3df9/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list