(Updated!) Control of Communicable Diseases A Proposed Rule by the Health and Human Services Department on 08/15/2016

Here’s a perfect example of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and request for public comment as required under The Administrative Procedures Act. This one has a 2 month comment period. Beyond the fact that is a legal requirement for the agency to publish this solicitation for public comment, is it important to us?

It’s hugely important! Firstly, it makes for a permanent public record of the submitted comments, which the agency is required to consider and address in its final rule, and secondly, the proper issuance of comment gives the commenter legal standing to challenge the final rule with an action for injunctive relief against its implementation. Without this comment, it is likely that any attempt at such action would be summarily dismissed for a lack of standing by the petitioner.

As one will see, submitting a proper comment is a significant investment of time, not to mention the necessary effort and insight to “decode” the actual meanings of the proposed rules, and this is one of the ways we as “The People” are simply overwhelmed by this occupying monster we call government.

I’ve highlighted just some of the areas of interest and potential targets of comment. Some are more important than others, but they’re all important. I’m afraid you’ll have to search and read the complete areas highlighted for a complete understanding of the section in question. The entire posting is found at the hyperlink below. (‘Ctrl F’ is your friend)

“Apprehension”

“HHS/CDC requests public comment concerning the expected apprehension period (no longer than 72 hours), and whether there are any public concerns with the absence of a specific maximum apprehension period in the regulation.”

“Electronic or Internet-Based Monitoring”

“HHS/CDC specifically solicits comment regarding whether this proposed definition is sufficiently broad to apply to any new or existing technologies that would allow for the public health supervision and monitoring of an individual under a conditional release order. HHS/CDC also solicits comment regarding whether the proposed definition raises any privacy implications for an individual who is reasonably believed to be infected with a quarantinable communicable disease and who is subject to a conditional release order.”

“Indigent”

“CDC specifically requests public comment on whether the use of this standard definition is an appropriate threshold to determine whether an individual cannot afford representation and therefore should be appointed a medical representative at the government’s expense.”

“Non-Invasive”

“HHS/CDC specifically requests comment concerning this definition including whether the definition aligns with common perceptions of what constitutes non-invasive procedures that may be conducted outside of a traditional clinical setting.”

“Public Health Emergency”

“HHS/CDC specifically requests public comment on this definition and its utility in identifying communicable diseases that ‘would be likely to cause a public health emergency if transmitted to other individuals’ under 42 U.S.C. 264(d)(2)(B).”

“Reasonably Believed To Be Infected, as Applied to Individuals”

“HHS/CDC specifically solicits public comment regarding this definition, in particular, whether the definition aligns with established public health practice regarding the handling of individuals exposed to or infected with communicable diseases.”

“2. § 70.5 Requirements Relating to Travelers Under a Federal Order of Isolation, Quarantine, or Conditional Release”

(IMPORTANT) “HHS/CDC recognizes that the right to engage in travel within the United States is a privilege of national citizenship protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as well as an aspect of liberty protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Jones v. Helms, 452 U.S. 412, 418 (1981). However, this right is not unqualified and travel restrictions based on the threat posed by communicable diseases are valid. See Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1965) (“The right to travel within the United States is of course also constitutionally protected . . . [b]ut that freedom does not mean that areas ravaged by flood, fire or pestilence cannot be quarantined when it can be demonstrated that unlimited travel to the area would directly and materially interfere with the safety and welfare of the area or the Nation as a whole.”). Furthermore, HHS/CDC will afford individuals subject to these travel restrictions with adequate due process through the previously mentioned written appeals process.”(IMPORTANT)

“CDC specifically requests public comment on this provision. In particular, HHS/CDC requests comment on whether stakeholders have concerns regarding the requirement imposed on conveyance operators to not “knowingly” transport individuals under a Federal order and the feasibility of this requirement. HHS/CDC also requests public comment on the application of this provision to individuals under state/local order as well as individuals traveling entirely within a state.”

“4. § 70.10 Public Health Prevention Measures To Detect Communicable Disease”

“HHS/CDC specifically requests public comment on this proposed provision and whether the public has any concerns regarding the mandatory health screening of passengers using non-invasive means as defined in this proposed rule.”

“HHS/CDC specifically requests public comment on this proposed provision to collect additional personal information from screened individuals for the purposes of contact tracing.”

“7. § 70.13 Payment for Care and Treatment”

(IMPORTANT) “Payment for care and treatment under this section is in the CDC’s sole discretion, subject to the availability of appropriations, and after all third-party payments have been exhausted.” (IMPORTANT- Define “third-party payments??”)

“HHS/CDC specifically requests public comment on this proposed provision and whether there are any concerns regarding the proposal that all third party payments be exhausted prior to the Federal reimbursement of medical care or treatment for individuals placed under a Federal order for quarantine, isolation, or conditional surveillance.”

“8. § 70.14 Requirements Relating to Issuance of a Federal Order for Quarantine, Isolation, or Conditional Release”

” HHS/CDC specifically requests public comment on this proposed provision to issue Federal orders to entire groups rather than individuals.”

” HHS/CDC specifically requests public comment on this proposed provision and whether this provision sufficiently informs the public all of the important details concerning circumstances during which HHS/CDC would issue to groups or individuals Federal orders for quarantine, isolation, and conditional release and the duration and conditions of such orders.”

“9. § 70.15 Mandatory Reassessment of a Federal Order for Quarantine, Isolation, or Conditional Release”

“HHS/CDC specifically requests public comment on this provision—in particular, whether 72 hours is the necessary amount of time to conduct a reassessment after a Federal order is first issued, or if the reassessment should take place earlier or later.”

“10. § 70.16 Medical Review of a Federal Order for Quarantine, Isolation, or Conditional Release”

“HHS/CDC specifically requests public comment on this proposed provision—in particular, whether or not the public sees a role for the Federal government to ensure that basic living conditions, amenities, and standards are satisfactory when placing individuals under Federal orders.”

“HHS/CDC specifically requests public comment on this provision—in particular, whether the public believes that there may be non-indigent individuals, as defined in this NPRM, who may have difficulty affording a representative”

13. § 70.19 Penalties”

“This section clarifies that of the statutory penalties imposed for violation of quarantine regulations (i.e., 42 U.S.C. 271 and 18 U.S.C. 3571), this rule will codify the higher penalty as established in 18 U.S.C. 3571.”

“HHS/CDC specifically requests public comment on this proposed provision—in particular, whether the penalties as proposed in this rule are clearly defined and the circumstances under which such penalties may be imposed.”

. . . and there’s much, much more. Good luck!

——————————–UPDATED———————————–

“14. § 71.40 Agreements”

(EXTREMELY IMPORTANT!!) “CDC may enter into an agreement with an individual, upon such terms as the CDC considers to be reasonably necessary, indicating that the individual consents to any of the public health measures authorized under this part, including quarantine, isolation, conditional release, medical examination, hospitalization, vaccination, and treatment; provided that the individual’s consent shall not be considered as a prerequisite to any exercise of any authority under this part.” (emphasis added)

Control of Communicable Diseases A Proposed Rule by the Health and Human Services Department on 08/15/2016

Submit your comments here: Comments on Proposed Rule

Have We Had Enough Yet?

Obvious to all other than the most disinterested observer is that fact that the “systems” in which we appear to place so much faith are NOT working on any level other than those upper levels that benefit only those upper levels. To continue the belief that “it will be different this time” is tantamount to doing the same thing repeatedly expecting different results, and most of us are familiar with the rest of that old saw. Clearly the evidence is there in massive quantities for those unafraid to see it in its full splendor. Now, having said all that, what may one do?

Firstly, it’s most important that we each come to grips that most (if not all) of what we’ve been “taught” about our “glorious system” is a lie at some level. But, don’t feel too special about it because that level of deception is globally common both presently and historically. This leads to the next logical conclusion:

We are not exceptional That’s not to say that the original concept (experiment) wasn’t exceptional, indeed it was! However, it took almost no time for the “undoers” to undo the original framework and begin the insidious process of inserting their same-old-system, pushing aside all those amazing and revolutionary ideas. As it was a gradual process, we’re well down the path since that beginning to the point where we cannot presently claim exceptionalism in any way, shape, or form. An objective review of our political history over the past say 150 years will support that conclusion in spades. Now, what?

This is where the real work begins. No, it’s not marching, carrying signs indicating our displeasure, which is totally ignored and ineffective, or pulling levers or punching cards in national elections that are fed into tabulating systems that are demonstrably corrupted, but rather it’s learning then acting clearly and definitively. Yes, I know, this seems like work, even hard work in some cases, and it’s not that “push-the-button-on-the-remote-control” immediate gratification; here’s the news flash – There Are No Immediate and Painless Solutions! So, where does one start?

One begins this journey right in the place where one has the most influence and can realize the greatest results: locally! Become familiar with your neighborhood, your neighbors, their interests and concerns. Become involved in town council/county supervisor meetings. Stay abreast of the legal filings in the local newspapers. In short, become educated in the “comings and goings” that actually have the most direct effects. While certainly not as seemingly grandiose as national politics, the reality is that this local venue is where one has the most influence.

In this local environment one can see the realities of who actually endeavors to affect the day-to-day of the vast majority of the people, usually well out of the view of the people. One can discover the quality (or lack thereof) of those who are paraded around during each election cycle and for whom the vote is cast by those who probably never even heard of them otherwise than through their habituation of office or simply just due to the fact that their name resides on that part of the ballot ascribed to one’s party of affiliation, regardless of how much or little consideration one has independently given to that chosen affiliation. All this requires the adoption, re-adoption actually, of the paradigm of a bottom-up style of government. After all, this was the originally adopted form with only a few, very narrow exceptions delegated to a federal entity. Sadly, that narrowness was systematically widened through a pattern of ursurpations by those with a more “monarchical mindset.”

Now, in conjunction with all this, it’s important to become fairly expertly familiar with our founding documents, the framers’ mindsets, the historic influences on both, and the specific delegated and reserved aspects of our system. This includes at least access to the formative judicial decisions relevant to any particular issue. (Remember, I said there was work involved beyond creating signs and parading them around).

Finally, what one discovers following this general outline is that there are a great many things, both past and present, which affect us and are totally out-of-line at every level with those delegated powers and processes! Imagine that?? I prefer to call that the “usurpation,” but one can name it as one wishes. This occurred in plain view, right under our noses. How? Basically because were weren’t paying attention and/or didn’t have the tools to recognize it for what it was and/or really didn’t care (as sad as that may sound). In any event the “usurpers,” recognizing that they could act essentially with impunity, merely continued compounding the felonies because no one stepped up to stop them.

Is it not now that people need to step up and stop them? If not now, then when? In any case it will be our sons, daughters, grandsons, and granddaughters who will want to know both why we let this continue and why we didn’t step up to correct it? Remember, the starting point lies right under our feet.

MEP Luke Flanagan’s visit to the viewing room for TTIP: A farce

Do NOT scroll past! WATCH! This EU model may give a glimpse into the type of “Global Democratic Governance” that awaits everyone in the wings.

Also, consider the amount of other peoples’ monies that must have been appropriated to build such a sprawling, enclosed complex.

European Parliament MEP Luke Flanagan takes us on an amazing journey down an outrageous rabbit-hole of “democratic privilege.”

“Excuse the quality of the video at times, as it gets a little foggy! Appropriate really for an agreement that is foggy when it comes keeping its contents from the general public. As you will see the process is a farce. Please share.”

On The Matter of Jury Nullification

jury-nullification-jefferson  Upon occasion, the topic of jury nullification arises. In post-modern thought it is typically believed to not exist and is presented as radicalized bane to our present judicial system. One can only speculate as to why that might be as it is certainly not supported by any legal history. In fact, the precise opposite may be found:

“Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumbable (sic), that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.” [Georgia v. Brailsford (1794)] (1)

So, in very simple language, there you have it. It was originally understood that there were three mechanisms available to overturn an unjust law: Both Legislative and Executive authority exercised under State Sovereignty or by Jury Nullification.
Marbury vs Madison (1803) (2) created a fourth method (previously unheard of and NOT expressly authorized by the Constitution) called “Judicial Review.” (3)

And then, it gets a bit more complicated: “[I]n 1895 in Sparf v. United States, the Court said that courts need not inform jurors of their de facto right of juror nullification although jurors’ inherent right to judge the law remains unchallenged.” (4)

“In the courts of the United States, it is the duty of the jury, in criminal cases, to receive the law from the court, and to apply it as given by the court, subject to the condition that, by a general verdict, a jury of necessity determines both law and fact as compounded in the issue submitted to them in the particular case.

“In criminal cases, it is competent for the court to instruct the jury as to the legal presumptions arising from a given state of facts, but it may not, by a peremptory instruction, require the jury to find the accused guilty of the offense charged, nor of any offense less than that charged.” (5)

Some will argue that Sparf v. United States established that there is no jury nullification in federal Article 3 Courts; however, is that really what SCOTUS said? Let’s deconstruct,
“. . . [S]ubject to the condition that, by a general verdict, a jury of necessity determines both law and fact as compounded in the issue submitted to them in the particular case.” SCOTUS is very clearly saying “by a general verdict,” meaning by the established precedence, “jury . . . determines both law and fact as compounded (meaning intermixed) in the issue submitted to them . . . .” So, it is valid to presume, based on their own language, that SCOTUS said if the “law” element within the admixture of the “compound” were viewed as flawed, then the entire “compound” was flawed. I cannot see where anyone could properly assert otherwise.

After adding this to your “data base,” in the future, when anyone elects to challenge the existence of jury nullification, you might have a word in your mouth. Please comment as you like.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_v._Brailsford_1794
(2) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review
(4) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparf_v._United_States
(5) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/156/51/

 

Jefferson Was Correct

Jefferson’s Final Warnings (He was right)

In his last years – after a lifetime of learning and experience, Jefferson had one thing preeminently on his mind: the principle of decentralized government.

Rather than saying “centralization,” Jefferson used the word “consolidation,” but they mean the same thing. Here’s his core statement on the subject, from his autobiography, written in 1821:

It is not by the consolidation, or concentration, of powers, but by their distribution, that good government is effected.

This statement put Jefferson at odds with the political leaders of his time and raised difficulties for him, as he writes in a letter to Judge William Johnson in 1823:

I have been blamed for saying, that a prevalence of the doctrines of consolidation would one day call for reformation or revolution.

For the following passage – a letter to William Johnson, written in 1822 – Jefferson’s words are set in italics and explanation/commentary in plain text:

They [a political party] rally to the point which they think next best, a consolidated government.

Here he points out that political parties tend to favor centralization, which they certainly have since.

Their aim is now, therefore, to break down the rights reserved by the Constitution to the States as a bulwark against that consolidation.

This party is trying to steal the power of the individual States and centralize it in one city, and they are willing to alter or bypass the Constitution to do so. The fear of which produced the whole of the opposition to the Constitution at its birth….

Here Jefferson is saying the Anti-Federalists were right and that the Constitution could not prevent the theft of liberties by the national government.

I trust…that the friends of the real Constitution and Union will prevail against consolidation, as they have done against monarchism.

Notice his phrase, “the real Constitution.” Already in 1822, he needed to make this distinction, because the Constitution was already being twisted, overridden, and bypassed. Alternately, he may have been referring to the original Articles of Confederation.

In a letter to William T. Barry in 1822, Jefferson writes this:

The foundations are already deeply laid by their [the Supreme Court Justices’] decisions for the annihilation of constitutional State rights, and the removal of every check, every counterpoise to the engulfing power of which themselves are to make a sovereign part.

Jefferson is likely referring to the Marbury v. Madison decision of 1803, a decision that American schoolchildren are taught to revere. Jefferson, however, considered it a disaster, as he explained in the following:

The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches.

—Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

But the Chief Justice says, ‘There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.’ True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force.

—Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451

But, you may ask, if the two departments [i.e., federal and state] should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide ultimately between them? In cases of little importance or urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground; but if it can neither be avoided nor compromised, a convention of the States must be called to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may think best.

—Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:47

This member of the Government (the Supreme Court) was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum (at one’s pleasure), by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.

—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

Clearly, this action by the early Supreme Court was extremely alarming and vexatious to Jefferson. Though, what he couldn’t foresee was the plethora of Supreme Court decisions extending and expanding the unitary power contributing to the destruction of state rights.

Jefferson continues:

If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption, indifferent and incapable of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface.

Lincoln’s Civil War (which enslaved the states to the national government) brought the states under a single government. Washington DC is the seat of the American Empire, and the individual states are minor players. It was supposed to be the other way around. Unfortunately, most people have no real appreciation for the treason of this action. This is precisely where the precipitous decline of this federation of independent states began. This action was immediately reinforced by the passage of the 14th Amendment (Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868), which, among other things, created the heretofore unheard of “United States Citizenship.” It’s instructive to note that this amendment was issued and ratified over a two year period where only a few of the southern states had been readmitted to congress, these re-admissions occurring between 1866 and 1870.

Here is a fragment from Jefferson’s letter to C.W. Gooch in 1826:

…I have little hope that the torrent of consolidation can be withstood….

Finally, a passage from his letter to William B. Giles, in 1825:

I see…with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power.

(Adapted and expanded from Jefferson’s Final Warnings http://www.freemansperspective.com/author/freemansperspective/)