BREAKING NEWS: The California Court of Appeal has ruled that SB277 is legal, but the media blackout remains in full effect. Curiously, the media blackout extends to all Facebook vaccine pages. Neither the mainstream nor alternative media are allowed to mention this SB277 lawsuit. You must be the media. News this important must be shared with others. It’s up to you.
T. Matthew Phillips
COURT of APPEAL DECIDES SB277 is LEGAL
The decision is now official — and published in the law books. TMP’s SB277 lawsuit has created “negative” legal precedent. SB277 is now deemed legal and constitutional … and because the plaintiffs failed to appeal to the California Supreme Court, the decision has become final.
COURT of APPEAL RULING
But the Court of Appeal got it wrong. SB277 is, in fact, unconstitutional because it “permanently” suspends civil rights. The Constitution only allows states to “temporarily” suspend civil rights – during an emergency situation — until the crisis ends — and civil rights must then be fully restored. Curiously, the Court of Appeal ruling never addresses this legal argument — temporary versus permanent suspension of civil rights — which was clearly articulated in plaintiffs’ legal briefs.
In times of emergency, states may assert their “police powers” — on a temporary basis — to regulate an emergency situation for the general welfare. Yes, states may assert their authority during times of emergency, however, once the crisis passes, the state no longer has a legal basis to intervene. Sometimes, states abuse their “police powers.” And that’s exactly what happened with SB277’s vaccine mandate — which goes too far because SB277 permanently abolishes civil rights.
CAMBRIDGE SMALLPOX EPIDEMIC
Back in 1902, in Cambridge, Mass., there was a deadly smallpox epidemic. Health authorities ordered mandatory vaccination. However, as soon as the epidemic ended, the mandatory vaccination requirements also ended. The point is — as soon as a given health crisis comes to an end, the state’s medical intervention must also come to an end.
JACOBSON vs. MASSACHUSETTS
In the Jacobson case, (1905), the Supreme Court said that Cambridge lawmakers were justified in temporarily exercising police powers — temporarily suspending civil rights — in an effort to halt the deadly smallpox epidemic of 1902. And when the epidemic ended, the need for state intervention also ended — and the mandatory vaccination law was no longer in effect.
TEMPORARY vs. PERMANENT
Note the distinction between “temporary” and “permanent” suspension of civil rights. States may exercise their police powers, if at all, only on a “temporary” basis — as long as the crisis lasts — but not on a “permanent” basis. SB277 is plainly unconstitutional because it allows Sacramento to “permanently” suspend civil rights — forever abolishing the child’s constitutional right to attend school.
STANDING ARMY ANALOGY
If there were riots in downtown L.A., one would expect to see riot officers stationed on city streets during the course of the riots. However, if riot officers were permanently stationed on city streets, then that goes too far — because now it’s a “standing army,” which is plainly unconstitutional. The point is, a state’s police powers are intended to be a temporary stopgap measure — during times of emergency — until the emergency concludes — at which point the state may no longer intervene — and civil rights must then be fully restored.
Yes, states may exercise police powers, but only on a temporary basis, and only under limited circumstances — first of all, there must be an actual emergency. For states to exercise their police powers with medical mandates, there must be an actual “medical necessity” equivalent to a “public health crisis.” If such emergencies do exist, then states may lawfully enact medical interventions — that temporarily infringe on civil liberties — but only if the interventions are medically necessary for the public health — i.e., necessary to halt the spread of infectious disease.
NOBODY DIED in ANAHEIM
The Anaheim measle event of 2015 was not of sufficient magnitude to be deemed a “public health crisis” in the first place. Nobody died in Anaheim. There was no “medical necessity,” and thus, Sacramento was not justified in asserting its police powers with a vaccine mandate.
CAMBRIDGE 1902 vs. ANAHEIM 2015
Back in Cambridge, 1902, there were legit circumstances that justified the exercise of the state’s police powers. There was an actual “medical necessity” because substantial numbers of people were dying of smallpox. In contrast, in Anaheim, 2015, there was no “medical necessity” because circumstances never got worse than a few dozen people allegedly reporting a 7-day fever and rash.
ANAHEIM EVENT CONCLUDED
For the sake of argument, even if we assume that the 2015 measle event was an actual “public health crisis,” that event has long since concluded and today poses no danger. And thus, even if there were an adequate legal basis, back in 2015, for the state to exercise its police powers, that basis no longer exists because, of course, the measle event already fizzled itself out.
PLAINTIFFS SHOULD HAVE APPEALED
SB277 goes way too far because it suspends civil rights on a “permanent” basis, while the Constitution allows states to suspend civil rights, if at all, only on a “temporary” basis — until a given crisis subsides. SB277 is unconstitutional because Sacramento “permanently” suspends civil rights. Plaintiff should have appealed this erroneous Court of Appeal ruling to the California Supreme Court! SB277 is unconstitutional. #YouHeardMe
~~ T. Matthew Phillips, Esq.
READ the COURT of APPEAL DECISION!!
Copyright 2018 – T. Matthew Phillips, Esq.
“Freedom means nothing if you can’t keep the government
out of your body.” ~~TMP.