CA State Dem’s Bill To Require Jabs For 'Permission' To Work: A Case Study In Constitutional Ignorance

P. Gardner Goldsmith | February 18, 2022
Font Size

Even as people worldwide engage in peaceful resistance to jab mandates, and even as numerous judges rule against deceitfully titled “vaccine passport” mandates (the most recent being a Feb 15 Massachusetts District Court of Appeals injunction calling for an end of Boston Mayor Michelle Wu’s jab mandate), a cadre of Democrats in the California State Assembly are pushing for a long-term, statutory, jab-to-keep-a-job mandate.

The bill is “AB 1993” introduced by Oakland Democrat Buffy Wicks, and reads, in part:

This bill would require an employer to require each person who is an employee or independent contractor, and who is eligible to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, to show proof to the employer, or an authorized agent thereof, that the person has been vaccinated against COVID-19. This bill would establish an exception from this vaccination requirement for a person who is ineligible to receive a COVID-19 vaccine due to a medical condition or disability or because of a sincerely held religious belief, as specified, and would require compliance with various other state and federal laws.

…There sure is a lot of “require” and “requirement” lingo in there…

Here’s more:

This bill would require, on January 1, 2023, each employer to affirm, in a form and manner provided by the department, that each employee or independent contractor complied with these provisions, and would require the employer to affirm that each new employee or independent contractor is in compliance at the time of hiring or contracting with that person. The bill would require the department to impose a penalty of an unspecified amount on an employer for any violation of these provisions.

Forgotten here are the two sets of “rules” Wicks and her pals swore to protect and defend as a condition of taking their tax-funded seats: the California Constitution and the U.S. Constitution.

In addition to NOT granting the state any power to impose mandates (including licensing) on private businesses, the CA Constitution (hyperlinked, in case any of those arrogant politicians would like to read it) contains Article One, Section One, which states:

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.

That portion about “acquiring, possessing, and protecting property,” and that bit about “pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness and privacy” are direct links to Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, which Jefferson himself understood as pertaining to the right to engage in private contract and free enterprise to obtain monetary or other forms of property wealth.

In Article One, Section Three, the state constitution also supposedly insures the right of free association, i.e. the right to freely get together with others to, among other things, WORK.

Article One, Section Seven prohibits deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process.

And on the national front, Assemblywoman Wicks' bill appears to flip the proverbial “bird” to half of the Bill of Rights, including the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Then, of course, there’s the provision in the U.S. Constitution which I’ve been mentioning since the politicians began imposing lockdowns, and which has a bearing on the deeply troubling, deeply engrained U.S. political thuggery of governments demanding folks get “licenses” before they can engage each other in consensual market transactions.

That’s the Contract Clause, found in Article One, Section Ten. It prohibits state-level governments from passing laws interfering with the fulfillment of private contracts.

Related: Tax-Subsidized Hospital Denies Father Heart Transplant Because He's Unvaxxed | MRCTV

Thus, if any politician bothered to adhere to the U.S. Constitution, proposals such as AB 1993 would be recognized as infringing on pre-existing work agreements, and then then honest politicians would toss them in the proverbial rubbish.

But Wicks and her ilk are not those kinds of politicians. In fact, one of her Senate supporters, and co-sponsor of the Senate version, is the infamous CA State Senator Richard Pan (D Pasadena), who long has pushed vaccine mandates on kids, and even pushed a bill to stifle online criticism of pharma creations.

Ironically, he called that 2018 bounder bill the “Online False Information Act,” because God forbid anyone question the official government and corporate narratives about anything. Truth must be dictated -- by people like Pan.

He being the guy who survivedpetition to have him recalled in 2019 after he began pushing to mandate vaccines and eliminate religious exemptions for kids to escape said mandates in government schools.

Pan was integral in the 2015 passage of mandatory vaccination (of 20 shots) for kids to get into school. The bill was SB277, the law remains, without any “belief exemption, and, while Pan is a backer of Wicks’ EMPLOYMENT mandate bill, which contains a “belief” clause, he ALSO has proposed a separate bill that would specifically negate the “belief exemption” for any COVID jab mandated on school kids aged 16 and up.

Work, AND school diktats.

Pan also happens to be the guy whom many alarmed California residents discovered to have received $95,000 in political donations from pharma corporations during his 2014 campaign for State Senate.

But all of those factors, as important as they are when trying to assess the personalities and motivations of those pushing these mandates, are not the key factor.

The key is the force. It’s not only not sanctioned by the U.S. and California rule books, such force would be immoral and unethical even if those documents DID allow for these kinds of mandates.

Human beings have the right to be left alone. They should not be forced to take a jab, at any age, for any reason.

Likewise, human beings should not be forced to pay for the government school system, or for the jabs themselves.

Whether it is the attempt to make someone accept a thing the government dictates, or the demand that you GIVE UP something the government demands, your life is your own.

No amount of government-media rhetoric and fearmongering can change this fact.

Related: School Allegedly Vaxxes 13-Year-Old Without Parental Consent After Bribing Him With Pizza | MRCTV