We all know that big pharma was given a hall pass that theoretically shields them from any and all liability arising from vaccine side effects. My question is how do they expect this to stand up in court of law? Politicians pass unconstitutional laws all the time... this is fundamental to the checks and balances system between out three branches of government. The legislative branch can pass any law they want and if the law is not constitutional the path to justice for the public is to take the government to court. If the court does it's job properly the law (or parts of the law) is struck down.
The 14th amendment mandates that the law must be applied equally to everyone. So isn't a law that makes some laws not apply to some people a violation of this? The legislative branch has no authority to grant immunity. How is there any expectation that the Vaccine Liability Immunity will stand up in court?
We all know that big pharma was given a hall pass that theoretically shields them from any and all liability arising from vaccine side effects. My question is how do they expect this to stand up in court of law? Politicians pass unconstitutional laws all the time... this is fundamental to the checks and balances system between out three branches of government. The legislative branch can pass any law they want and if the law is not constitutional the path to justice for the public is to take the government to court. If the court does it's job properly the law (or parts of the law) is struck down.
The 14th amendment mandates that the law must be applied equally to everyone. So isn't a law that makes some laws not apply to some people a violation of this? The legislative branch has no authority to grant immunity. How is there any expectation that the Vaccine Liability Immunity will stand up in court?
(post is archived)