Artistotle said: “Law is reason free from passion.” Many of you may have heard this quotation from a dramatic representation of the first day of law school in a popular movie.
I, however, read this quotation in a court of appeals opinion for a negligence case I was working on last week, and I thought, THAT is the problem with SB 277.
We do not have reason free from passion. We have passion free from reason.
The Constitution was designed to ensure that no matter what the crisis, American legal principles of fairness, justice, and equality would be preserved.
It is difficult for me to comprehend how, in all of this discussion of some ever amorphous “common good,” we keep hearing from those that support this bill, there is no acknowledgement that the common good is supposed to be just that — COMMON.
Instead, what I hear is that those who decide to not to vaccinate are somehow less entitled to constitutional protections — not only in regards to the medical procedure itself, but also when it comes to the constitutionally protected right to access California courts should an injury or death result.
The State’s message is clear: if you want to be a member of the State of California, and access your child’s constitutionally protected fundamental right to a free education, then you must submit to them and forfeit some of the most important rights which natural law encompasses.
To this I say: NO THANK YOU.
I have noticed, throughout this process, and particularly in the Senate judiciary and Assembly health analysis reports, that the State of California picks and chooses which legal doctrines to honor, and attempts to ignore the rest.
For example, this discussion of the common good digs up an 110 year-old case, which required a single dose of one vaccine during a widespread outbreak of a transmissible disease and attempts to apply that rationale with zero health emergency and 30 to 40 times the number of doses of vaccines!! Absurdity!
It simultaneously ignores many Supreme Court cases: including Lochner’s limitations on POLICE POWER — the law compels us to inquire, is this “a fair, reasonable and appropriate exercise of the [police power], or is it an unreasonable, unnecessary and arbitrary interference with the right of the individual to his personal liberty.” Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 56 (1905).
More recently, in the much more infamous case, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the Court explicitly stated, “freedom of personal
choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties
protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” The law is clear– choice is a FUNDAMENTAL hallmark of the AMERICAN legal tradition.
And of course, let’s not forget, I drafted the Consumer Protection Amendment to address the fact that despite the fact that products liability claims CANNOT be waived under California law, due to the unconstitutional federal laws and fake vaccine court, under current California law, you can sue tobacco makers but not vaccine manufacturers — even if their products kill your child.
Another HUGE area of law they choose to ignore is the Doctrine of Assumption of Risk. I think we can all agree that schools are not sterile environments. In fact, germs are prevalent. There are hundreds viruses that run wild through schools on any given Monday, and yet here lawmakers are attempting to force parents to vaccinate against 10 of them.
So where do we draw the line? And how do we ignore the fact that it is the parents concerned about infection that are the ones engaging in a legally recognized area of the law. Aren’t parents the ones better equipped to choose whether or not to homeschool? Does our Constitution really support a forced medical procedure of thousands in order to hopefully maybe possibly protect one? Call me crazy, but the last time I read the Constitution it said we are entitled to EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, not that some children are more equal than others.
When I was sworn into the State Bar of California, I, like every other attorney in the state, took the following Oath:
I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of an attorney and counselor at law to the best of my knowledge and ability.
And that is what I have been doing throughout the process of fighting this unlawful, unreasonable, and unfair law.
That is why I helped work on this letter:
which discusses the many many constitutional and other legal principles of American and Californian law that SB 277 clearly violates. It has been signed by over 160 lawyers in 35 states & DC in 3 days, and has been hand delivered to Assembly Health Committee chair Rob Bonta.
It symbolizes the choice of whether we stick to the well settled principles of American Law: reason FREE from passion, or we choose the route of the hysterical: passion FREE from reason.
Will you join me as we stand up for justice?