Mikovits, 5G, and Economic Collapse, Part IV: Dr Rashid Buttar Made a Booboo

by Mary W Maxwell, LLB

I love Dr Buttar, don’t get me wrong. He is the snazziest thing to come along in a long time. He is pleading for quick action before the world goes to hell. He speaks fast and he is a hands-on doctor (especially for autism). He is ropable about every aspect of the Covid-19 game. Go, Rashid!

Still, the good doctor (OD — doctor of osteopathy, a physician) made an essential booboo and I can’t sit idly by and let it go uncorrected, can I?

Buttar has started a petition, based on some weird law or policy that says The White House has to give a response to any petition that garners 100,000 signatures. Rashid Buttar says “Never mind 100,000 I’m going for a million.”

Very good.  Remember when Australia’s Olympic runner Robert de Castella said – halfway through the race – “Bugger the silver, I’m going for the gold”?  Fine, fine, I hope Buttar gets a million, or even 50 million signatures – just to throw a spanner in Bill Gates’ works. (I believe the spanner is already in, and that Buttar had a big role in throwing it.)

But the content of Buttar’s requested petition has to do with asking President Trump to make a law, by way of an Executive Order, to forbid censorship.

Puh-leeze. A prez does not make laws.  His EO’s are ornamental.

Can we forgive Rashid since he is a product of the United Kingdom, instead of the Great Republic?  OK — it makes sense, he grew up thinking a king can make law. But – please listen to me – a president of the US can never, as in totally never, make law.

Just in case your mind rushes to Prez Franklin Delano Roosevelt (emphasis on the Delano, of China trade fame, as in opium, as in “bioweapon”) and his Executive Order 9066,

I can explain!

Granted, Roosevelt caused thousands of Japanese-blood residents of the US’s 3 west coast states to be put into concentration camps, including many who had US citizenship. Granted, granted.  But he did not make the law for that to happen. He ran his EO 9066 idea past Congress in 1942 and Congress said “Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full sir,” type thing. After all, Pearl Harbor had happened and a bunch of Japanese “Tsarnaevs” were on the loose.

Introducing Article I, section 8 of the Parchment to Dr Buttar

I’ll never tire of admiring the prescience of the Framers of the Constitution. Would that we had a bunch of blokes like that today. Or even a gaggle of sheilas. (Actually, I met a mixed gaggle the other day, mostly Native Americans, with two Medicine Women, and they would have been a match for the Framers).

The layout of the Con is as follows:  Articles I, II, and III, show the tasks, respectively, of the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. Then we have Article IV about the states, Article V on how to create an amendment (27 amendments since 1789), and Article VII is heavily into miscellany.

Section 8 of Article I is devoted to the 18 subject matters on which the feds can have a say. The 55 blokes who sat in Convention Hall, Philadelphia, were there to look out for the interests of their own state. They had turf jealousy vis a vis the federal government. They “gave” only what they felt like giving.

So they allowed the feds – in the person of Congress – to legislate about coinage, borrowing money, not letting one state take advantage of another, immigration, bankruptcy, blah blah, on down to the final the 18^th clause which says

“[The Congress shall have Power to] make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof”.

(It is known in the trade as the “Necessary and Proper clause”)

Are you paying attention, Doctor? It says if Trump wants something, he asks Congress to provide it. Of course Article II does give him some specific presidential powers to carry out all by his lonelies. He has much discretion in foreign policy. He can appoint military officers, meet with ambassadors, cut ribbons (it doesn’t really say that, but if he cuts a ribbon no one is likely to make a balance-of-power issue of it), and make treaties “provided two-thirds of the senators present concur.”

There is another thing the president can constitutionally do, and it is big, enormous, and gargantuan, namely: “He shall take Care that the Law be faithfully executed” (Article II, section 3).  We will return to that later in this series.

Censorship

Dear Dr Buttar, you were incensed (so was every thinking American) that YouTube censored you by blipping out the word “5G” every time you said that 5G radiation is an exacerbator of the coronavirus. Here we have, in my opinion, a matter that neither Congress nor the president should take charge of.

Let’s look at the First Amendment.  The way it protects free speech is by saying “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.”  Like most of the rights in the Bill of Rights it is a “negative right.”  It promises that the government will stay its hand, it won’t tell individuals or the press what to do.

Your proposed “law against censorship” is a horse of another color. You would be telling the press what to do. (I think YouTube is the press, but that’s arguable; maybe it’s only a platform).

My own objection, as a fusspot Republican, is that your proposed law would give government a say over an area where it should not have a say. Personally, I think many areas belong to the realm of culture.

When it is a market phenomenon, people can vote with their feet. Indeed, many are now abandoning Youtube for Vimeo and Bitshute. “That’ll teach YouTube a lesson!”

Some cultural things do get handled by the federal or state legislatures. How about obscenity – isn’t it cultural, and isn’t all speech protected by the First Amendment? I am told that you can’t say “Fuck” on the bus. This is a federal area if the said bus travels interstate, e.g. Greyhound.

I concede that the feds can make laws about interstate commerce; I forgot to list the “commerce clause” as one of the 18 things that can be accomplished on The Hill. But whether they can control language, I don’t know.

It would take someone fighting in court against having been arrested for saying “Fuck.”  To see if there has been such as case, google for “US Constitution, annotated” which lists all successful Judicial challenges, and then scroll to “First Amendment” and enter a phrase such as “fuck on the bus.”

(Ah, I just looked up Cohen v California, a 1971 SCOTUS ruling that said there is First Amendment protection for the wearing, into a courthouse, of a jacket with the words “Fuck the Draft” embroidered on it. The arrestee had been charged with “disturbing the peace” — sort of a get-around of free speech. Forgive me but I think that case popped up for the purpose of endorsing “a divided America” over the Vietnam war.)

Can the President Inject Everybody?

Quite a surprise. President Trump has just said he will use the military to vaccinate all 300 million of us, via “Operation Warp Speed.” I am sure that would be an unconstitutional use of the military, but if it happens, it will require “appropriations” from Congress. It will be codified at the USC, United States Code.

Similarly to make TRACE work (HR 6666), if it gets enacted, the relevant appropriations will be codified.  Here is a sample of that sort of thing from an earlier law, on Planned Parenthood. I am quoting from 42 USC 300, with bolding added by me:

“(a) The Secretary is authorized to make grants to and enter into contracts with public or nonprofit private entities to assist in the establishment and operation of voluntary family planning projects which shall offer a broad range of acceptable and effective family planning methods including … infertility services, and services for adolescents….

(b) …In making grants and contracts under this section, the Secretary shall take into account the number of patients to be served …. Local and regional entities shall be assured the right to apply for direct grants and contracts under this section, and the Secretary shall by regulation fully provide for and protect such right.

(c) The Secretary, … (a), may reduce the amount of such grant by the fair market value of any supplies or equipment furnished the grant recipient by the Secretary.

(d)  For the purpose of making grants and contracts under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated $30,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971;… $111,500,000 for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1975; … $139,200,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1983”

And so forth. The text of the USC gets modified each year, as shown, when Congress passes new appropriations bills.

Emergencies

Folks, this is where your anger goes to town.  I am trying in this GumshoeNews series, on “Mikovits, 5G, and Economic Collapse,” to show any law that can help us.  Upon finding a “wrong” law, we can take either of two paths. The most common path is to go for judicial review – that is, to have the US Supreme Court say that the legislature has no power to enact this law, as it violates the Constitution.

The other path is for people to jump on Congress and say “Don’t pass a stupid law.” In 1976, Congress pretended it was cleaning up an old problem, in regard to some of the World War II emergencies that remained on the books past their “best by” date. The Hill then gave birth to The National Emergencies Act. It is still in force today. And a further bunch got passed as 9-11-ish emergencies.

“Emergency” is a great word – like terrorism or pandemic – for making officials think they should go way overboard in the face of a generalized threat. I believe the 1976 law should not have been passed.  The federal government already has constitutional powers to handle such things as an attack by an enemy, whether foreign or a fifth column, not mentioning any names, or a rebellion.

Per section 9 of Article I:

“The writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended except when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

Such a shelving of habeas corpus protection means “law enforcement” and perhaps the military, can push people around. Normally you can only be jailed if charged with a crime, but under this “martial law” exception in the Constitution, you can be stashed away without cause. (Martial law means military law.  This seems to be Trump’s plan for vaccination.)

But it is outside his pay grade. The quoted section came from Article I and, since it is Article I, the power described is for the legislature. In short, Congress can order martial law.  George Mason reportedly refused to sign the Constitution in 1787 unless the suspending of habeas corpus was limited in this way.  Go, George!

We often see presidents talking about emergencies that have to do with weather. But he/she can only talk about money to repair the damage. So that is not an emergency. I think the National Emergencies law is pernicious and Congress should repeal it. Alternatively, I hope judicial review would find it unconstitutional.

Constitutionally, Congress cannot voluntarily transfer its responsibilities to the other two branches. All three branches should guard their territory like mad, but they don’t.  I say that is because they don’t care. They are happy to obey a hidden ruler.

Please stay tuned for further fast-developing issues related to Covid-19, such as whose name should be inscribed on the Little List for citizen’s arrest.  Oh, by the way, Buttar says he has heard from 400 doctors supporting him AND 700 LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL.

Go, good cops!