US Pharmaceutical Companies Are Not Completely Immune: Part 2

100% Unconstitutional With A 100% Chance Of Breakthrough Legal Cases

Disclaimer: This does not constitute legal advice. Speak with a legal professional.

In part 1, we covered why pharmaceutical companies are still liable, even through the Unconstitutional draconian lens of the various ‘immunities’ acts themselves. Part 2 will be much longer and will examine the Unconstitutional aspects.

In this part, we will be covering why both Acts are completely Unconstitutional, and therefore legally invalid, starting with the…

National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986

What Constitutional aspects does it violate? Well, it…

Violates Due Process

NCVIA Unconstitutionally delegates the power of permitting people the right to sue into the hands of ‘district courts’. Quoting from the Act (emphasis added):

Grants U.S. district courts authority to determine eligibility and compensation. Requires the district court in which the petition is filed to designate a special master to serve as an adjunct to the court.

It also states (emphasis added):

Provides that no vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death: (1) resulting from unavoidable side effects; or (2) solely due to the manufacturer's failure to provide direct warnings.

This is a Due Process violation for several reasons.

1. It Violates Right To Jury

Under the lesser known Seventh amendment, which governs rights under civil lawsuits, it clearly states that (emphasis added):

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

That is to say, you have a Constitutional Right to Trial by Jury in a civil lawsuit. This right cannot be abridged, not by Congress, not by district courts, nobody.

This means when National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act declares you cannot hold a vaccine manufacturer liable, it is outright legally false. You have the right to a trial by jury for any damages or controversies greater than $20 Constitutionally written. It cannot be simply wished away by an act of Congress.

2. It Violates Due Process

The Seventh amendment is also reinforced by the wording found in the Fifth amendment, which relates to trials in general (emphasis added):

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 offence 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.

The inability to sue vaccine manufacturers by jury is depriving you of your liberties, and removes the due process of law (read: the government can also be sued for violating your rights). But this also shows the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act is not legally sound and must be vacated.

3. Does Not Deny The Re-examination Of Facts

Further, anyone who has used the ‘Special Masters Court’ in relation to vaccines (also dubbed the ‘vaccine court’ or ‘vaccine injury court’), has the opportunity to have the facts re-examined, because the prohibition to the re-examination of facts only applies to jury trials, as mentioned in the Seventh amendment.

4. It Violates Rights To A Judge

Both the Fifth and the Seventh amendment are based on an old English document known as the ‘Magna Carta’, of which the important section reads:

No free man is to be arrested, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any other way ruined, nor will we go against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land

The crucial part is “or by the law of the land”.

Special Masters are not judges. They are typically only ‘private individuals’ (read: not active judges), and they can only be appointed if both parties consent, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, TITLE VI. TRIALS, Rule 53. Masters. They are more akin to direct action investigators than judges.

Although Rule 53 says “Unless a statute provides otherwise”, there’s no legal Constitutionally valid grounds by which a Special Masters can be mandated, as the Seventh amendment clearly states the plaintiff (initiator of the lawsuit) has the right to a jury trial. That is, they have the right to choose (Seventh amendment permits individuals to waive their right to jury, but that must be a free choice, not coerced).

The government being allowed to forcefully appoint ‘private individuals’ rather than judges is a violation of the Magna Carta’s “by the law of the land”, because ‘private individuals’ are not active judges, are not privvy to up-to-date legal information, lack the appropriate powers, and are therefore not part of ‘the law of the land’ that can issue a ‘lawful judgement’.

Now we have examined why the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act is Constitutionally unsound, let us examine the…

Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act)

Passed in 2005, the Constitutional violations of this act are even worse. Most of what applies to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act applies here (namely, violating the right to a civil jury trial), however there are some additional violations unique to the PREP Act itself.

1. Violates The Fourteenth Amendment

Quoting part of the Act:

[…] a covered person shall be immune from suit and liability under Federal and State law with respect to all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration to or the use by an individual of a covered countermeasure […]

Whilst this is blatantly and evidently a Constitutional Violation of the Seventh Amendment, it also causes States to violate the Fourteenth Amendment (emphasis added)

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.

That is to say, State governments that enforce PREP Act are legally liable, because PREP Act causes them to “abridge” (reduce) the privileges and immunities of citizens of the US.

That is to say, by imposing the PREP Act, they violate Citizens’ rights to the civil jury trial under Seventh Amendment, which in turn causes a Fourteenth Amendment violation at the State level. States are therefore obliged to disregard and oppose PREP Act as a fourteenth amendment violation.

2. Empowers An Unelected Department To Interfere In Interstate Commerce

Quoting from the Act again, it mentions that the Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary has to the power to make declarations:

[…] (b) Declaration by Secretary.-- (1) Authority to issue declaration. […]

It also mentions the HHS Secretary can direct how manufacturing occurs, including, crucially, distribution (read: where it goes, what State lines it can cross):

[…] under conditions as the Secretary may specify, the manufacture, testing, development, distribution, administration, or use of one or more covered countermeasures […]

And just in-case we have any doubt it allows interference with State laws, it also explicitly says:

[…] no State or political subdivision of a State may establish, enforce, or continue in effect with respect to a covered countermeasure any provision of law or legal requirement that-- (A) is different from, or is in conflict with, any requirement applicable under this section; and (B) relates to the design, development, clinical testing or investigation, formulation, manufacture, distribution, sale, donation, purchase, marketing, promotion, packaging, labeling, licensing, use, any other aspect of safety or efficacy, or the prescribing, dispensing, or administration by qualified persons of the covered countermeasure, or to any matter included in a requirement applicable to the covered countermeasure under this section or any other provision of this Act, or under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Quite in-depth in what it denies States. States cannot set up laws or legal requirements for “distribution”, “sale”, “donation”, “packaging”, “dispensing” and “administration”, besides other things. Essentially, commerce.

The HHS secretary is unelected, and being able to authorise and deauthorise immunity to liability at will, on a bill that controls “liability under Federal and State law”, means the HHS secretary is not only undemocratic, but also actively interfering with States’ Interstate Commerce, and fundamental States’ rights.

Under Section 8 of the Constitution (abbreviated for convenience), it says:

The Congress shall have power to […] regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

The Interstate Commerce clause basically boils down to States being permitted to freely engage or disengage in Interstate Commerce, unless controlled by Congress.

The HHS secretary is not Congress, and thus their interference with products, States’ liabilities and trade by forcing them to adopt ‘countermeasures’ (read: medical products) they do not want, is in violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause, and thus, Unconstitutional.

There is also already a legal precedent for this. This argument was used to defeat the Federal mandates, where SCOTUS found that the HHS secretary did not have the Constitutional right to issue mandates or rulings, and blocked them.

That is because the nondelegation doctrine prohibits the Legislative Branch from delegating its lawmaking responsibilities. The HHS secretary cannot have devolved powers to add and/or remove new laws and requirements on whim.

3. Unconstitutionally Denies The Right Of Judicial Review

One aspect of ‘the law of the land’ is one has the right of appeal in most, if not all, legal cases. PREP Act gives HHS secretary Unconstitutional authority over, and you read this correctly, all courts in the US.

This isn’t just hyperbole interpretation, it literally explicitly says this:

Judicial review.--No court of the United States, or of any State, shall have subject matter jurisdiction to review, whether by mandamus or otherwise, any action by the Secretary under this subsection.

Essentially, the law tries to non-factually claim that the HHS secretary’s actions cannot be reviewed by any court. Essentially — and incorrectly — asserting they are above the law.

It is a type of circular tyranny, where an Unconstitutional and illegal bill tries to argue you do not have the legal power to review how Unconstitutional and illegal it is. Ride on bucko.

Congress does not have the power to rob courts of their judicial review privileges. This concept is known as ‘Separation of Powers’, which is part of Checks and Balances. Neither the Legislative nor the Executive have the power to deny judicial review of laws or actions, thus, this section is Unconstitutional.

4. Denies Rights Of Even Those Outside Scope

The PREP Act mentions:

In the case of a covered person who is a manufacturer or distributor of the covered countermeasure involved, the immunity applies without regard to whether such countermeasure was administered to or used by an individual in accordance with the conditions described

As we discussed in part 1, the HHS secretary has to disclose who and what are covered. The entire act screams illegality, but this part takes the cake.

It says, regardless of whether the HHS secretary declares someone to be in the area of coverage or not, everybody outside that coverage also has no right to sue the manufacturer.

So, if the HHS secretary, for example, declares an emergency on an island with no-one actually on that island, or even in say, an imaginary sky castle, everyone else in the rest of the US automatically loses their Seventh amendment rights to sue for liability under this section for that so-called ‘countermeasure’, and they won’t even know it.

This is so blatantly Unconstitutional that it belies belief it was even ever authorised.

PREP Act Bonus Round

Not a Constitutional aspect per se, the PREP Act fails to define the scope of what a ‘countermeasure’ is.

An “overly broad” term. Example: you could shoot people with a gun in order to stop a disease outbreak, is that a non-liable countermeasure? Is nuking them a non-liable countermeasure? Where does the buck stop?

It is too legally vague to be properly defined in scope. How do you know if you’re in complianceif you don’t even know what a ‘countermeasure’ is? Do States have to accept, say, open nuclear waste if it is deemed a ‘countermeasure’ to a disease? Even invented, unproven diseases?

Who determines what a valid countermeasure is? What happens if the countermeasure is deemed to be harmful? Can you adopt a countermeasure to a disease caused by a countermeasure? Infinite countermeasures loop?

It is a giant loophole that allows the HHS secretary to open the floodgates to all, giving them unchecked powers to declare immunity to liability on just about everything. Completely broken.

---

Both laws are horribly flawed and Unconstitutional, with the PREP Act, passed in 2005, being a dark reflection of the government’s tyrannical encroachment into people’s lives post-9/11.

PREP Act even mentions how “no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider” cases in relation to Guantanamo Bay. It’s sole purpose seems entirely to be rob people of their Constitutional rights. The entire Act is an Unconstitutional mess.

Hopefully this gives people some legal insights on the weaknesses of the supposed ‘immunity to liabilities’ the pharmaceutical companies have.

---

Get more content from The Daily Beagle.

Learned something new?

And leave a comment below: