A MUST-WATCH VIDEO: A Women Gets Her Contact Tracer Certificates and Tells All


* * *

Please support I. U.

PayPal: Donate in USD
PayPal: Donate in EUR
PayPal: Donate in GBP

2 thoughts on “A MUST-WATCH VIDEO: A Women Gets Her Contact Tracer Certificates and Tells All”

  1. There is a way around this one as well.
    First, without going into much detail, this program is invoked under a federal Bill seated under Title 42 USC. Title 42 of the U. S. Code is NOT positive law of this land. The particular section for HR 6666 must be promulgated under the CFR’s and registered in the Federal Register showing which agency is responsible for it’s enforcement and which segment of the public it’s directed at.

    I don’t see that any of this has been done.

    Second, even to get around this requirement the federal government would also have to show that this particular federal program can supersede the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine! It cannot. A clue for you would be to revisit the issue of Sheriff Richard Mack with the Brady Bill back in 1996 against the Federal Government.

    What is the United States Code?

    “The United States Code is the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States. It is divided by broad subjects into 53 titles and published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives.

    The U.S. Code was first published in 1926. The next main edition was published in 1934, and subsequent main editions have been published every six years since 1934. In between editions, annual cumulative supplements are published in order to present the most current information.

    Of the 54 titles, the following titles have been enacted into positive (statutory) law : 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 46, 49, 51, and 54. When a title of the Code was enacted into positive law, the text of the title became legal evidence of the law. Titles that have not been enacted into positive law are only prima facie evidence of the law. In that case, the Statutes at Large still govern. Note: Title 52 is an editorially created title, and Title 53 is currently reserved. For the current list of titles, see http://uscode.house.gov.”

    See United States v. California 314 F. Supp. 3d 1077 (E.D. Cal. 2018), which held:

    “The Supreme Court’s so-called “Anti-commandeering” Doctrine recognizes this check on Congressional power. Congress may not directly compel States to enact a regulation or enforce a federal regulatory program, conscript state officers for such purpose, or prohibit a State from enacting laws. See New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 188, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992) (“The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.”); Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 935, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997) (“Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State’s officers directly.”); Murphy, 138 S.Ct. at 1478 (“The PASPA provision at issue here—prohibiting state authorization of sports gambling—violates the anti-commandeering rule. That provision unequivocally dictates what a state legislature may and may not do.”). Even requiring state officers to perform discrete, ministerial tasks violates the doctrine. Printz, 521 U.S. at 929–30, 117 S.Ct. 2365. The reasons behind the anti-commandeering doctrine are several. See Murphy, 138 S.Ct. at 1477 (Part III–B). First, the rule reflects “the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty.” Printz, 521 U.S. at 921, 117 S.Ct. 2365. By balancing power between the sovereigns, it prevents the accumulation of excessive power and “reduce[s] the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.” Gregory, 501 U.S. at 458, 111 S.Ct. 2395. Second, the doctrine prevents Congress from passing the costs and burdens of implementing a federal program onto the States. Printz, 521 U.S. at 930, 117 S.Ct. 2365. Third, the doctrine promotes accountability; it ensures that blame for a federal program’s burdens and defects falls on the responsible government. Id. (“And it will likely be the [state chief law enforcement officers], not some federal official, who will be blamed for any error (even one in the designated federal database) that causes a purchaser to be mistakenly rejected.”). These reasons, among others, counsel that courts must adhere to the strictures of the rule even where a Congressional act serves important purposes, is most efficiently effectuated through state officers, or places a minimal burden upon the State. Id. At 932, 117 S.Ct. 2365. “It is the very principle of separate state sovereignty that such a law offends, and no comparative assessment of the various interests can overcome that fundamental defect.” Id.”


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.