Unconstitutional: SB 277
Or
How California's Legislature and Governor Ignored the Law and Shredded the Constitutions of California and
the United States
The California Surpreme Court, Cal Bar Assn Annual Meeting 2015
July 1, 2015. Sacramento, CA. After receiving substantial big $$ from the pharmaceutical industry to push through perhaps the most Unconstitutional piece of legislation in the history of California, Big Pharma may be celebrating the passage of SB 277 and Jerry Brown's signature on this measure into law, but the California Supreme Court and maybe the U.S. Supreme Court will have the last word. All sixteen of those justices took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and. in the case of the seven California justices, the Constitution of the State of California. Pictured are the California Supreme Court Justices dressed and ready for action, teaching a history lesson to California attorneys at the 2015 Annual meeting of the California Bar Association. In passing and signing SB 277, Jerry and the State Legislature may have shredded the Constitutions of California and United States but these justices took an oath to uphold those Constitution and Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye is a woman of her word. Unfortunately for those legislators, who want to eliminate parental rights, Tani is also a mother and she was NOT appointed by Jerry.
The ways in which SB 277 violates the California and U.S. Constitutions are too extensive to mention in this short piece and so this article will just hit some of the highlights.
The ways in which SB 277 violates the California and U.S. Constitutions are too extensive to mention in this short piece and so this article will just hit some of the highlights.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SEC. 4. Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. A person is not incompetent to be a witness or juror because of his or her opinions on religious beliefs.
When the California Constitution was adopted in 1849, the founders of the State were proud of the U.S. Bill of Rights and crafted it straight into the California Constitution. So those provisions people hold dear in the U.S. Constitution, such as Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion, are in the basic document that created this State.
The State Constitution is explicit in guaranteeing The Merc insert to the MMR vaccine clearly states that it contains aborted fetal lung tissue. Here, those whose religion does not include allowance of aborted fetal tissue injections will not be allowed to attend school or to take part in a class with homeschoolers or others. In other words, the religious discrimination under SB 277 is so extensive and unyielding that it will cost children and their parents substantial other fundamental and Constitutional rights.
Here is the parallel provision that the U.S. Supreme Court will be looking at:
The State Constitution is explicit in guaranteeing The Merc insert to the MMR vaccine clearly states that it contains aborted fetal lung tissue. Here, those whose religion does not include allowance of aborted fetal tissue injections will not be allowed to attend school or to take part in a class with homeschoolers or others. In other words, the religious discrimination under SB 277 is so extensive and unyielding that it will cost children and their parents substantial other fundamental and Constitutional rights.
Here is the parallel provision that the U.S. Supreme Court will be looking at:
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
RFK, champion of Constitutional Rights
The First Amendment includes two important provisions: the
Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. In this case, those
religions opposing abortions are superseded by an implied doctrine of the state
to the effect that abortions are not only religiously OK but that aborted
tissue may be injected into children against their will and their own personal
religion. In some cases, religions contain beliefs that God has bad
things in store for those who participate in abortions. Those children
who believe in these religions are forced to undergo a violation of their
religion as they are injected with aborted fetal cells.
Some religions oppose the injection of blood into humans and yet ingredients within the vaccines contain human and animal blood. People of those religions must choose isolation from school for their children or coercion into going against their own religious beliefs.
The classroom provision in SB 277 can be interpreted to include Bible classes, thus preventing unvaccinated children from attending their Sunday schools.
This leads into the right of Freedom of Assembly. The Legislature at the last minute added a provision that eliminated a vaccine exception for homeschoolers who take classes. This means they can't take classes as part of their IEP (Individualized Educations Progarm). Unvaccinated children can't take enrichment classes, AP classes, IB classes, sports classes, music classes or work on a TV or movie set as there are studio classrooms for children on all sets. As noted above, they also cannot attend Bible Classes or classes in whatever their religion is. In other words, three clauses of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution are violated by SB 277: the Establishment Clause, the Freedom of Religion Clause and the Freedom of Assembly Clause. The adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause means that the states also have to abide by the First Amendment. The only Amendment within the Bill of Rights that has not been applied to the states is the Seventh Amendment. The others have all been found to be applicable to the Sates and last this writer knew, California is a state.
California has its own Freedom of Assembly provision.
Some religions oppose the injection of blood into humans and yet ingredients within the vaccines contain human and animal blood. People of those religions must choose isolation from school for their children or coercion into going against their own religious beliefs.
The classroom provision in SB 277 can be interpreted to include Bible classes, thus preventing unvaccinated children from attending their Sunday schools.
This leads into the right of Freedom of Assembly. The Legislature at the last minute added a provision that eliminated a vaccine exception for homeschoolers who take classes. This means they can't take classes as part of their IEP (Individualized Educations Progarm). Unvaccinated children can't take enrichment classes, AP classes, IB classes, sports classes, music classes or work on a TV or movie set as there are studio classrooms for children on all sets. As noted above, they also cannot attend Bible Classes or classes in whatever their religion is. In other words, three clauses of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution are violated by SB 277: the Establishment Clause, the Freedom of Religion Clause and the Freedom of Assembly Clause. The adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause means that the states also have to abide by the First Amendment. The only Amendment within the Bill of Rights that has not been applied to the states is the Seventh Amendment. The others have all been found to be applicable to the Sates and last this writer knew, California is a state.
California has its own Freedom of Assembly provision.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICE I. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SEC. 3. (a) The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good.
AP, IB, fitness, music, religious and other classes are in the interests of the common good of homeschooled children and yet they are prohibited under SB 277 from participating in classes, a violation of Article I, Section 3 of the California Constitution and of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Did Jerry Brown leave his copies of the Constitutions in Oakland when he moved into the Old Governor’s mansion?
But this is just the beginning. Let's look at Serrano v Priest. 18 Cal.3d 730 (1976). At 18 Cal.3d 766, the California Supreme Court declared emphatically that "education is a fundamental interest." In other words, any law limiting the right of students to an education is going to be judged using strict scrutiny. The Legislature had to show overriding public interest that could not be addressed in any other way. Good hygiene and simply having children who are sick stay home from school are among the many ways available to prevent contagion. Also, since students who have active cases of the diseases vaccinated against and who are contagious are allowed to attend school, the unvaccinated, non-contagious children are less of a threat while the uncontagious unvaccinated students are the ones being deprived of their fundamental right to an education.
But this is just the beginning. Let's look at Serrano v Priest. 18 Cal.3d 730 (1976). At 18 Cal.3d 766, the California Supreme Court declared emphatically that "education is a fundamental interest." In other words, any law limiting the right of students to an education is going to be judged using strict scrutiny. The Legislature had to show overriding public interest that could not be addressed in any other way. Good hygiene and simply having children who are sick stay home from school are among the many ways available to prevent contagion. Also, since students who have active cases of the diseases vaccinated against and who are contagious are allowed to attend school, the unvaccinated, non-contagious children are less of a threat while the uncontagious unvaccinated students are the ones being deprived of their fundamental right to an education.
In applying our state constitutional provisions guaranteeing equal protection of the laws we shall continue to apply strict and searching judicial scrutiny to legislative classifications which, because of their impact on those individual rights and liberties which lie at the core of [18 Cal.3d 768] our free and representative form of government, fn. 48 are properly considered "fundamental." Serrano v Priest, (1976)18 Cal.3d 730, 767-768.
RFK, Dr. Brian Hooker and Minister Tony Muhammed
Moving onto additional provisions of the U.S. Constitution, also compromised at the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments. Additionally, provisions of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disability Act are violated as well. Simply put, the vaccines are known to cause irreparable harm to a significant number of children, disproportionately targeting Black children. We know this because the lead scientist who conducted the studies and other scientists who also worked with the studies have come forward and blown the whistle to inform the public of the racial discrimination and the risk of injuries and deaths any child who receives a vaccine incurs. America's top environmental attorney Robert F. Kennedy, vaccine researcher and whistle blower Dr. Brian Hooker and Tony Muhammed held a town hall meeting on June 25, 2015, in Los Angeles where they revealed scientific studies unequivocally showing that SB 277 will have the devastating racial discrimination of the Tuskegee Experiment multiplied by 200,000. Both Dr. Hooker and CDC lead scientist Dr. William Thompson have come forward to expose the devastating effects of the MMR vaccine and other vaccines on African-American boys and the risk of serious injury and death to people of other races as well. Dr. Thompson has presented thousands of pages to Congress and has requested to be subpoenaed so as to be in a position to end the cover-up of the damage done by the vaccines. They also revealed that, for the most part, the vaccines are ineffective in creating immunities and often are the actual causes of the diseases they are supposed to prevent. To the surprise of most audiences, the whistle-blowers further revealed that the effects of over 90% of the vaccines (including some on the SB 277 list) have never been researched. Dr. James Jeffrey Bradstreet also blew the whistle, maybe a little too loudly. After exposing the relationship between autism and vaccines, Dr. Bradstreet was found shot and dumped in a North Carolina river. His family and friends are convinced he met with foul play.
These vaccines constitute an unwarranted invasion of the bodies of America children without consent. The children are not given their rights before their bodies injected with mercury and carcinogens, which could cause death shortly after injection or years later from diseases present in the vaccines. No rights are read. Children are forced to turn over evidence of having been vaccinated or not vaccinated and if that evidence shows they have not been vaccinated, they are injected with mercury, carcinogens, live viruses and other dangerous vaccine ingredients. The children are not given attorneys or a trial before the loss of their rights. They are told there will be stripped of the fundamental right to an education if they don't comply. In many cases, the parents are too poor to homeschool and it is an issue of class discrimination. In the case of death and paralysis and other serious injuries without any crime having been committed on the part of the children, Death for being a child wishing to attend school or classes constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Where is the Due Process? Where is the Equal Protection for African-American boys and for the poor? Following are more of the relevant provisions of the Bill of Rights, all of which are applicable to the Sates through the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
These vaccines constitute an unwarranted invasion of the bodies of America children without consent. The children are not given their rights before their bodies injected with mercury and carcinogens, which could cause death shortly after injection or years later from diseases present in the vaccines. No rights are read. Children are forced to turn over evidence of having been vaccinated or not vaccinated and if that evidence shows they have not been vaccinated, they are injected with mercury, carcinogens, live viruses and other dangerous vaccine ingredients. The children are not given attorneys or a trial before the loss of their rights. They are told there will be stripped of the fundamental right to an education if they don't comply. In many cases, the parents are too poor to homeschool and it is an issue of class discrimination. In the case of death and paralysis and other serious injuries without any crime having been committed on the part of the children, Death for being a child wishing to attend school or classes constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Where is the Due Process? Where is the Equal Protection for African-American boys and for the poor? Following are more of the relevant provisions of the Bill of Rights, all of which are applicable to the Sates through the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VIII. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
And let's not forget the Due Process Clause of Section 1 of
the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which makes everything applicable
to the States. And of course, this same section also includes the Equal
Protection Clause.
Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Of course, the California Supreme Court will be ruling on
similar provisions in the California Constitution, including the state's own
Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Parents of children who have died
might find that their lives do matter to at least the judges. To the left
is part of a memorial to child victims of vaccines. Their parents hope
that the Supreme Court will at least care enough to protect children who don't
want to be injured but who want an education, anyway.
Here are a few more of the many provisions in the California Constitution which could be used to overturn SB 277.
Here are a few more of the many provisions in the California Constitution which could be used to overturn SB 277.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SEC. 13. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches may not be violated; and a warrant may not issue except on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons and things to be seized.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SEC. 17. Cruel or unusual punishment may not be inflicted or excessive fines imposed.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SEC. 24. Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution. In criminal cases the rights of a defendant to equal protection of the laws, to due process of law, to the assistance of counsel, to be personally present with counsel, to a speedy and public trial, to compel the attendance of witnesses, to confront the witnesses against him or her, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, to privacy, to not be compelled to be a witness against himself or herself, to not be placed twice in jeopardy for the same offense, and to not suffer the imposition of cruel or unusual punishment, shall be construed by the courts of this State in a manner consistent with the Constitution of the United States. This Constitution shall not be construed by the courts to afford greater rights to criminal defendants than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States, nor shall it be construed to afford greater rights to minors in juvenile proceedings on criminal causes than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States. This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.
Interestingly in Part (b) of Section 7 of Article I, the California Constitution
holds that no class of citizens may be deprived of rights or privileges of
another class of citizens. Under SB 277, healthy students who, due to
religious or health concerns, do not wish to be injected with 49 different
shots containing carcinogens, aborted fetal tissue, human and animal blood,
live viruses and other ingredients known to be toxic, are being denied the
fundamental right to an education and to associate with others in a classroom
setting.
(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked. [Article I, Section 7]
The most basic of cases upon which Democrats have
historically relied is Griswold v Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479,
85 S. Ct. 1678 (1965) written by Justice William O. Douglas. Robert
Bork's refusal to abide by this case was the primary reason for the failure of
his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. In Griswold, Douglas found
that the Bill of Rights created a penumbral right to privacy. In that case,
the privacy involved the use of contraceptive. SB 272 violates the very
right to privacy of a child's body, something certainly secured by that penumbra
of privacy found in the Bill of Rights in Griswold. In the words of Justice Douglas:
The association of people is not mentioned in the Constitution nor in the Bill of Rights. The right to educate a child in a school of the parents' choice -- whether public or private or parochial -- is also not mentioned. Nor is the right to study any particular subject or any foreign language. Yet the First Amendment has been construed to include certain of those rights.
By Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra, the right to educate one's children as one chooses is made applicable to the States by the force of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. By Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, the same dignity is given the right to study the German language in a private school. In other words, the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment, contract the spectrum of available knowledge. The right of freedom of speech and press includes not only the right to utter or to print, but the right to distribute, the right to receive, the right to read (Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 143) and freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought, and freedom to teach (see Wiemann v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 195) -- indeed, the freedom of the entire university community. Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 249-250, 261-263; Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 112; Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360, 369. Without [p483] those peripheral rights, the specific rights would be less secure. And so we reaffirm the principle of the Pierce and the Meyer cases.
In NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 462 we protected the "freedom to associate and privacy in one's associations," noting that freedom of association was a peripheral First Amendment right. Disclosure of membership lists of a constitutionally valid association, we held, was invalid
as entailing the likelihood of a substantial restraint upon the exercise by petitioner's members of their right to freedom of association.
Ibid. In other words, the First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion. In like context, we have protected forms of "association" that are not political in the customary sense, but pertain to the social, legal, and economic benefit of the members. NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 430-431. In Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, we held it not permissible to bar a lawyer from practice because he had once been a member of the Communist Party. The man's "association with that Party" was not shown to be "anything more than a political faith in a political party" (id. at 244), and was not action of a kind proving bad moral character. Id. at 245-246.
Those cases involved more than the "right of assembly" -- a right that extends to all, irrespective of their race or ideology. De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353. The right of "association," like the right of belief (Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624), is more than the right to attend a meeting; it includes the right to express one's attitudes or philosophies by membership in a group or by affiliation with it or by other lawful means. Association in that context is a form of expression of opinion, and, while it is not expressly included in the First Amendment, its existence is necessary in making the express guarantees fully meaningful. [p484]
The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 516-522 (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were described in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630, as protection against all governmental invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life." [*] We recently referred [p485] in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 656, to the Fourth Amendment as creating a "right to privacy, no less important than any other right carefully an particularly reserved to the people." See Beaney, The Constitutional Right to Privacy, 1962 Sup.Ct.Rev. 212; Griswold, The Right to be Let Alone, 55 Nw.U.L.Rev. 216 (1960).
We have had many controversies over these penumbral rights of "privacy and repose." See, e.g., Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622, 626, 644; Public Utilities Comm'n v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451; Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167; Lanza v. New York, 370 U.S. 139; Frank v. Maryland, 359 U.S. 360; Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541. These cases bear witness that the right of privacy which presses for recognition here is a legitimate one. Griswold v Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 482-285 (1965),.
California is at risk of falling into tyranny, where the
State is given the right to inject known carcinogens, aborted fetal tissue,
live viruses, mercury, animal and human blood and other known toxins into
children without consent and over refusals in violation of the religions of
these children and their parents. Though a Referendum to repeal draconian
measure is planned, this bill has provided the justices with an opportunity to
affirm the Constitution and the foundations of our country and our state by
striking this discriminatory attack on Blacks, the poor, people of different
religions and cultures and parents who love their children. In the face
of Unconstitutional tyranny, our state and federal justices have a chance to
prove they meant every word of their oaths to protect and defend the Constitutions of the State of California and of the United States.