Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law Re-Posted Aug 21, 2021 by Martin Armstrong
A lot of people have written in to ask if I would explain my position on the legal outcome of forced vaccines. I will try to be a bit more detailed. I see this as a conflict in law at the Supreme Court and how do we argue against Vaccine Passports. It is true that in the case of smallpox, the court ruled that they could force vaccinations of people in the 1905 case of Jacobson v Massachusetts. Smallpox was UNIQUE to humans and creating a vaccine could eradicate it since it did not simultaneously exist in animals. To this day, the origin of smallpox remains a mystery.
We should look at this not as a vaccine but as a medical treatment. If you look at the CDC, they are clearly on this agenda of terrorizing the public and they take money from Gates. The CDC no longer tracks the flu deaths which they have done for decades. They suddenly merged flu and ammonia with COVID because they cannot actually tell the difference in many cases. The flu epidemic has been cured by COVID and the CDC should be subpoena and the person who made this decision should be deposed.
Now for the conflict in law. In Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250 (1891) an employee was injured claiming a concussion. The company wanted to subject the employee to a medical examination. The Supreme Court denied the company on the grounds that an individual has a basic right to deny medical treatment. They wrote:
“No right is held more sacred or is more carefully guarded by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. As well said by Judge Cooley: “The right to one’s person may be said to be a right of complete immunity; to be let alone.” Cooley on Torts 29.”
“Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body, and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient’s consent commits an assault, for which he is liable in damages.”
Now, when you go to a doctor, they make you sign a CONSENT form for the medical procedure. We have a right to our own bodies which is in direct CONFLICT with Jacobson. The right to refuse medical treatment is obvious part of the legal requirement that a doctor must have the patient CONSENT. In Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990)
The logical corollary of the doctrine of informed consent is that the patient generally possesses the right not to consent, that is, to refuse treatment. Until about 15 years ago and the seminal decision in In re Quinlan, 70 N.J. 10, 355 A.2d 647, cert. denied sub nom. Garger v. New Jersey, 429 U.S. 922 (1976), the number of right-to-refuse-treatment decisions were relatively few. [Footnote 2] Most of the earlier cases involved patients who refused medical treatment forbidden by their religious beliefs, thus implicating First Amendment rights as well as common law rights of self-determination. [Footnote 3] More recently, however, with the advance of medical technology capable of sustaining life well past the point where natural forces would have brought certain death in earlier times, cases involving the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment have burgeoned. See 760 S.W.2d at 412, n. 4 (collecting 54 reported decisions from 1976-1988).
Therefore, it is my OPINION that we have a conflict in law where Jacobson may be what everyone is focusing on because it held you could be forced to take a vaccine, whereas this flies in the face of the established requirement for obtaining CONSENT from a patient to any medical procedure.
As I have said, I am willing to help any lawyer who wants to save the nation from this insanity. If they can force a vaccine to supersede the First Amendment Right to freedom to assembly, then the First Amendment has been repealed. We all know where that will lead and they can create anything and call it a vaccine that is entirely experimental and wipe out the ability to even have children. There is no accountability and we MUST retain our human right to REFUSE any medical procedure.