Important alarms are ringing for many who have read Brittany Hughes’ Jan 3 MRCTV piece on the introduction of a bill in the New York State Assembly claiming the power to “remove” or “detain” people suspected of being infected with a dangerous contagion or having come into contact with any such person.
It’s what many freedom-lovers feared and expected authoritarians to do, repeating the disastrous mentalities of those who established internment camps for Japanese Americans in World War Two, and, even darker, the Nazi, Soviet, and Chinese Communist camps that saw tens of millions caged and killed by those governments.
And there’s a new revelation about this proposed abomination…
It turns out that the sponsor, NY State Assembly member, N. Nick Perry (D), has attempted and failed three times in previous sessions to pass pretty much the same thing.
Beginning in the 2015-2016 session, and failing to pass what was called A6891, then pushing and failing with A680 in the 2017-2018 session, and repeating the insulting and aggressive spectacle with A99last year, Mr. Perry is – shock – pushing his new monstrosity, A416, in this Democrat-dominated disaster of a state.
This thing should shock anyone who cares about the scraps of liberty that remain on the floor of the political slaughterhouse of the United States.
It is so riddled with slippery language and undefined terms that, if it passes, the NY government could detain people based on any pretext the Governor or his “Health Commission” concocts.
If the Governor declares a public “state of health emergency” (which is, already, an unsound basis for government operation -- a matter we’ll address later) “due to a communicable disease”:
2. UPON DETERMINING BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE HEALTH OF OTHERS IS OR MAY BE ENDANGERED BY A CASE, CONTACT OR CARRIER, OR SUSPECTED CASE, CONTACT OR CARRIER OF A CONTAGIOUS DISEASE THAT, IN THE OPINION OF THE GOVERNOR, AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE COMMISSIONER, MAY POSE AN IMMINENT AND SIGNIFICANT THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH RESULTING IN SEVERE MORBIDITY OR HIGH MORTALITY, THE GOVERNOR OR HIS OR HER DELEGEE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE COMMISSIONER OR THE HEADS OF LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS, MAY ORDER THE REMOVAL AND/OR DETENTION OF SUCH A PERSON OR OF A GROUP OF SUCH PERSONS BY ISSUING A SINGLE ORDER, IDENTIFYING SUCH PERSONS EITHER BY NAME OR BY A REASONABLY SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE INDIVIDUALS OR GROUP BEING DETAINED. SUCH PERSON OR GROUP OF PERSONS SHALL BE DETAINED IN A MEDICAL FACILITY OR OTHER APPROPRIATE FACILITY OR PREMISES DESIGNATED BY THE GOVERNOR OR HIS OR HER DELEGEE AND COMPLYING WITH SUBDIVISION FIVE OF THIS SECTION.
Problem one: The term “clear and convincing evidence” is supposed to be a “standard” to constrain the agents of the state. But the definition of it is… determined by the state. That’s like asking a spouse abuser to define “abuse”. It’s circular, a non-starter.
Problem two: The very concept that the Governor or “his delegee” may “order the removal and/or detention of such persons by issuing a single order…” flies in the face of the Bill of Rights. Specifically, it runs contrary to the Fourth Amendment requirement for a warrant in order to search or arrest someone for commission of a crime. It’s a contemptuous insult to the Fifth Amendment, the pertinent portion of which reads:
…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…
It is a breach of the Sixth Amendment’s assurance of a fair and speedy jury trial. It is a breach of the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, for how can one be punished and imprisoned without a trial?
It is a breach of the Fourteenth Amendment’s reiteration of the promise of a jury trial, and it doesn’t even specify what “removal” means. Removal from what? From where?
It gets worse, reading:
(A) A CONFIRMED CASE OR A CARRIER WHO IS DETAINED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT CONTINUE TO BE DETAINED AFTER THE DEPARTMENT DETERMINES THAT SUCH PERSON IS NO LONGER CONTAGIOUS. (B) A SUSPECTED CASE OR SUSPECTED CARRIER WHO IS DETAINED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT CONTINUE TO BE DETAINED AFTER THE DEPARTMENT DETERMINES, WITH THE EXERCISE OF DUE DILIGENCE, THAT SUCH PERSON IS NOT INFECTED WITH OR HAS NOT BEEN EXPOSED TO SUCH A DISEASE, OR IF INFECTED WITH OR EXPOSED TO SUCH A DISEASE, NO LONGER IS OR WILL BECOME CONTAGIOUS.
So much for committing a crime against a victim, so much for a jury of one’s peers, and so much for the tradition of law that goes back to the Magna Carta. And anyone who is familiar with how slippery and uncertain the CDC has been with its “official” determination of whether asymptomatic “positive” cases represent high or low risks for transmission knows that the government is not to be trusted with either your precious liberties, science, or the definition of words. In June of 2020, the CDC “didn’t actually have the answer”about asymptomatic spread of COVID19. Then, after its fear-mongering (and the election, that saw states push for mail-in ballots), the CDC finally announced in early December that, as with most coronaviruses, the chance of transmission for those who were asymptomatic was next to nil, and that asymptomatic people didn’t even need to be tested. Then there’s the entire problem of the lack of reliability for the both the PCR (polymerase-chain-reaction) test and the so-called “rapid” test. The “rapid test” is not quantitative, meaning that titer is not determined.
And the PCR test is, as its inventor Kary Mullis said, not reliable as a diagnostic tool for determining whether someone is diseased, and the more often the material used in the PCR test is “cycled”, the more false positives it creates. Even Health Highness Dr. Anthony Fauci admitted the problem of PCR unreliability. As a result, even if this portion of Perry’s bill were sanctioned by the Constitution (it’s not; it’s PROHIBITED by the Bill of Rights, as noted above), the CDC already has shown the unworkability of government to “determine” contagion risk, and the bill leaves the determination up to the arbitrary whim of bureaucrats.
How nice. Hitler, Mao, and Stalin might be impressed.
And Perry isn’t through. He pushes more of his Gestapo-like, COVID-Camp phrasing:
(C) A PERSON WHO IS DETAINED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS SECTION AS A CONTACT OF A CONFIRMED CASE OR A CARRIER SHALL NOT CONTINUE TO BE DETAINED AFTER THE DEPARTMENT DETERMINES THAT THE PERSON IS NOT INFECTED WITH THE DISEASE OR THAT SUCH CONTACT NO LONGER PRESENTS A POTENTIAL DANGER TO THE HEALTH OF OTHERS.
That could pertain to anyone with a simple head cold or anyone who came in “contact” with said cold-sufferer.
An old, weak person increases his risk by coming into contact with a person who has a cold. But we are realistic about the risks. And this point is something to keep in mind since, because of all the fear-mongering and drumming about “cases”, and thanks to the government payments to medical centers if they list deaths WITH COVID19 as deaths FROM COVID19, people often forget that the survivability rate of this is actually quite high.
They forget that, in September, Breitbart reportedthe survivability rate for the disease called COVID19 was:
0-19 years old, 99.997 percent; 20-49 years old, 99.98 percent; 50-69 years, 99.5 percent; and 70 years old or older, 94.6 percent.
Based on the way the pop media and many politicians and bureaucrats have pumped the fear-gas, does anyone not think that Perry’s constitutionally dubious bill would be employed in other low-risk situations should it be passed?
Three final points.
Perry offers this:
(D) A PERSON WHO IS DETAINED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS SECTION AS A CONTACT OF A SUSPECTED CASE SHALL NOT CONTINUE TO BE DETAINED: (I) AFTER THE DEPARTMENT DETERMINES, WITH THE EXERCISE OF DUE DILIGENCE, THAT THE SUSPECTED CASE WAS NOT INFECTED WITH SUCH A DISEASE, OR WAS NOT CONTAGIOUS AT THE TIME THE CONTACT WAS EXPOSED TO SUCH INDIVIDUAL; OR (II) AFTER THE DEPARTMENT DETERMINES THAT THE CONTACT NO LONGER PRESENTS A POTENTIAL DANGER TO THE HEALTH OF OTHERS.
This repeats the problems outlined with the previous section and piles on another arbitrary, government-defined phrase: “or after the department determines that the contact no longer presents a potential danger…”
How will the state do its magic “contact tracing” when the Fourth Amendment prohibits agents of the state from searching your personal belongings unless they get a warrant from a judge citing the person to be searched and the items sought?
That’s thanks to the 1996 federal HIPAA statute, which was called Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and which, many national politicians falsely said, “protected your medical data,” but which ACTUALLY claimed for the GOVERNMENT the power to collect your medical data any time. No warrant. No judge. No rights.
And on the subject of rights, let's reiterate something essential that Hughes reported in her January 3 piece. Perry’s NY Assembly bill A416 claims for the state the power to “detain” a person for up to 60 days without a so-called “court order,” and for 90 day chunks with a “court order” – three-month periods that can be renewed at any time with - yeah, you got it - a new court order.
Because, as we all know, “court orders” are right there, in Article Z of the Constitution.
Just like the false notion of “public health.”
There is no such thing as “public health” – there is only individual health. The moment the government claims that it has to work for the health of “the public” or "the majority" it is claiming that it can infringe on your rights and harm your ability to care for yourself. It is embracing a consequentialist, ends-justify-the-means, approach to the individual, who can be sacrificed for the larger group, or whatever group the politicians decide makes up their “public.”
This is how eugenicists push for the extermination of the elderly and infirm, for abortion and sterilization. It’s all for “public health.”
Perry’s A416 cannot be allowed to go unnoticed by any American. It is an abomination of a proposal that he has, in various forms, tried – and failed – to pass in previous sessions of the NY Assembly.
We must study it, and tell people why its very foundations are contrary to the fundamental precepts of life itself.