Showing posts with label scotus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label scotus. Show all posts

Monday, May 2, 2022

Editor of the VDP Gazette Asking SCOTUS for Clarification on Planned Parenthood v Casey

Editor, DL Mullan
SCOTUS / Women's Rights  / Constitutional Republic

_____________________________
 

Honorable Chief Justice Roberts and Justices, 

In the court case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court has decided to go against case law to interject its religious underpinnings by finding a convenient legal loophole. With that said, when the states infringe on women's medical rights as so many have thus far, what will the Court do when said women use Amendment IX?

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Many states hold in their Constitutions that their residents shall not be forced into a medical system, however, the Court has deemed that states can now force women into a not only a medical system championed by the government, but by a theocratic disposition.

How can rights and refusal stand simultaneously? In a Constitutional Republic such as the United States, individuals hold the power and rights. It matters not what other people believe about how someone exercises that right, religion does not enter into the discussion.

Do women have rights or privileges?

Under Amendment IX, the Constitution and our Founders believed that rights are inherent upon the individual. So how can the Court deny the document for which they are supposed to adhere to?


Thank you for your time,
DL Mullan, Editor
VDP Gazette

Sources: Politico, Cornell Law School, 

 

Thursday, January 13, 2022

Editor of the VDP Gazette Asking SCOTUS for Clarification on Recent Comments and Decisions

Editor, DL Mullan
SCOTUS / Nuremberg / Constitutional Republic

_____________________________


Honorable Chief Justice Roberts and Justices of SCOTUS,

I have a few questions about recent comments and decisions from the Justices and SCOTUS.

To start, Justice Amy Coney Barrett remarked that instead of abortion, adoption was available. This alternative is already obtainable, but not pursued, for many unintended pregnancies. Is the Justice asserting that if the government gives you an option, that then allows the government to outlaw any other choices?

As a Constitutional Republic where the Individual is ultimate minority and conveyor of power, how does SCOTUS feel that religion can be used in any manner to mandate preferences when religion is not a construct of our Constitution or Bill of Rights? Upholding the Separation of Church and State is in the Founding Fathers’ discourse on the subject.

That leads into the next question of my community’s curiosity: vaccine mandates. Today, SCOTUS rejected this current administration from mandating medical procedures onto private businesses, however, upheld the mandate onto anyone receiving federal funds (Medicare, Medicaid facilities). Are the Justices unaware of the International Law prohibiting such coercion? These vaccines are under Emergency Use Authorization, thus deemed experimental, and that means mandates and coercion of any kind is against the Nuremberg Code. Are the Justices uneducated in the history of the Nazi regime’s experiments on the Jewish people?

When Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Stephen Brier spoke in court with many inaccuracies about the current state of the COVID-19 virus, my community became concerned. As we have seen, the Court is ignorant about many factual realities. First, Transgenderism is a mental issue making the patient unaware of their body dysmorphia. To have Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protect mental illness patients, such as transgenders, so that employers cannot have any control over their brand or business seems unwise, and out of context of the law. The law does not provide this protection. Sex is the biological sex as defined by the hard sciences, not the sociopsychological definition assigned to “gender” ideology. In any case, how is it that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 places an ideology, or even a mental illness, in the category of biological “sex”?

Shouldn’t have SCOTUS then referred the case to Congress in order to change the law defining biological sex to also include gender ideology and mental illness?

Does SCOTUS believe we live in a Constitutional Republic? This question is asked because if our country is based on the rule of law, individual rights, and the freedoms and responsibilities that go with our liberties, then how are the Justices coming up with their decisions?

I would like to offer some information to the Justices about the virus. The vaccines are a push to normalize corporate profits with mandated medical procedures that do not support the construct of living in a Constitutional Republic. Majority rule, or mob rule, is not a weight that can be placed against an individual in any form. Our body political [politic] can ask the populace, but cannot demand anything as the government answers to the People -not corporate boardrooms, the administrative state, organizations, or think tanks. The People have never voted these periphery state actors into office.

As a disabled woman that is immunocompromised, a vaccine made me sick most of my life. Other situations arose that eventually led to my full disability for life. I survived COVID-19, with my supplements. Most notably: 5000 IUs of Vitamin D3.

Government agencies and their corporate partners are demonizing real science and medicine in order to corner the market. As one wise person stated: the human condition does not rely on the pharmaceutical industry for survival, but the pharmaceutical industry relies on humans for its survival. Preventative and therapeutic medicines are being outlawed by a means of heresy, not science. That is your real cause of death: Americans are being denied actual care for the psychological dependence on the Medical Industrial Complex. 

Besides, the fact that these vaccines spread the virus. According to Ed Greca, there is a solution to the vaccine spreading the virus. Here is a taste of what the video states:
  • "Once they get vaccinated, the U.S. military will collapse."
  • "I tell you, the vaccination against the CCP virus will basically be near the end."
  • "When the U.S. elite society (is vaccinated).
  • "Vaccination will no longer be pushed, and the antidote will certainly offered."
  • "The antidote will pop up."
  • "What is the antidote for?"
  • "It's not to heal the damage brought by the vaccines."
  • “Those who were vaccinated are sentenced to death.”
Watch the full video here, get an American interpreter to verify the statements: https://htrs-special.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/CCP-Virus-Vax-Video-Conference.mp4.

Are you caught up now? Because I can impart more factual information to the Court, along with many more questions as to why SCOTUS is bowing to internal and external pressures that do not coincide with the tenets of our Constitutional Republic.

The Individual is responsible for his or her decisions. No one can demand others to validate their personal life decisions. As well, no one can demand that people validate the mental[ly] ill’s delusions.

Wisdom is knowing that the legislative, judicial, and executive branches cannot stop people from making a mistake; it is our individual right to do so.


Thank you for your time,
DL Mullan, Editor
Villa de Paz Gazette

*****
Special Thanks to Jarome Bell, GOP Candidate for Virginia's 2nd District for the House of Representatives, for the video.







Saturday, August 28, 2021

Questioning SCOTUS about Justice Barrett's Refusal to Hear a Vaccine Mandate Case Against a University

Your editor asking the questions straight to the people who need to explain themselves like you would expect of me. Shouldn't you expect it from other journalists as well? 


August 26, 2021

SCOTUS:

As a journalist and legal researcher, why would Justice Barrett deny a request of a student against their university to hear about a vaccine mandate. In what manner can a corporation, albeit a publicly funded one like a university infringe on someone's rights?

Medicine should never be a police power of the state or its subsidiaries.

In my current article: Mandating a Vaccine with an Unknown Biological Agent is Against International Law, the question I would ask of the Justices including Barrett would be: why in the times of uncertainty can states, agencies, and their actors be allowed to circumvent our fundamental rights, international law, and our basic human rights?


No medical treatment should ever be mandated by anyone.

Why does the Court and its Justices disagree?

Thank you,
DL Mullan,
Editor VDP Gazette

http://www.villadepaz-gazette.com/2021/08/mandating-vaccine-with-unknown.html


*****
in reference to:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/08/barrett-leaves-indiana-universitys-vaccine-mandate-in-place/





Saturday, July 5, 2014

21st Century Witch Trials Begin: Religious Persecution Affirmed by SCOTUS

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Religion / Constitution
______________________________
“Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity.”
- Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man (1791)

The Supreme Court displayed its ineptitude this past week as it sided with a corporation on its religious beliefs. That's right, folks, corporations are people too. They have religious rights over their employees. 

Sound to idiotic to be true? We only wish.
"What this ruling does is it moves in the direction this court has been moving already, which is talking about corporate personhood -- really treating corporations like people, saying that the corporation has a religion itself and that should be imposed on its employees," said Emily Tisch Sussman of the liberal Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Still do not believe we are enslaved by the corporate governmental structure? Here's the breakdown:
Monday's 5-4 high court ruling allowed some family-owned or other closely held businesses to opt out of a federal requirement to pay for contraceptives in health coverage for their workers.
What this decision amounts to is the Witch Trials. Contraception is the witchcraft and women are the witches. When are people going to grow the hell up? Your religion does not dictate other people's rights or freedoms. Sharia Law, uber-conservative Christian style has been established in the United States by the Supreme Court. 

In America, if you are a woman: you pay double for your health insurance and now birth control, get paid 30% less for the same amount of work, and are expected to mindlessly follow edicts that some old guys make up just because, even if you do not subscribe to that religion. 

Welcome to the 21st Century Witch Trials, where brains are optional.
“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.”
- Thomas Jefferson, A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (1779)

Exactly, Mr. Jefferson, but who is listening? Apparently not the Supreme Court who should know better. When religion and politics mix, people get burned at the stake.

Maybe it's time women went the way of Lysistrata but with a positive outcome instead of catering to men's needs in the end like SCOTUS just did with Hobby Lobby. The battle of the sexes is a long one because religion and society are male dominated concoctions. So why comply?  

If you haven't gotten the clues yet, the Founding Fathers of our nation as well as other thinkers of the time were dead set against religious glorification in law.
"Christian establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects."
- James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr. (1774)

And, of course:
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
- James Madison, General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia (1785)

But what do I know? I'm just a woman.