How Medical Tyranny Murdered The United States Constitution
A NotebookLM overview / summary for Maiden Anarchy (Rachel Sunshine)'s 'How Medical Tyranny Murdered The United States Constitution' E-Book Dissertation
Full PDF Copy
Briefing Document / Overview
(The following are summaries generated by Googleâs NotebookLM based on the full E-Book)
The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage
We are in Stage 8, but I believe if we worked hard enough, we could quickly fight our way out of this an emptied bondage and bring forth from an inner faith a moment of great courage and boldness. We must, however, act quickly.
~ Murdered Constitution, Maiden Anarchy / Rachel Sunshine, pp. 9
Author Background:
Maiden Anarchy is presented as a staunch anarchist with a background in Constitutional Law, journalistic integrity and extensive writing on legal topics. She claims to have spent much of her life preparing to be a Supreme Court Justice. However, disillusionment with government corruption led her to abandon that path. She is motivated to write this analysis by what she views as the "Medical Tyranny" that has arisen in the United States. She states that the analysis is motivated by family, friends, and strangers and that her work is intended to provide clarity and a possible path forward for reclaiming liberty and freedom in America.
Main Thesis:
The United States Constitution has been effectively "murdered" by a combination of government overreach during declared medical emergencies and an expansion of judicial power through the concept of "Judicial Review." This has led to a "Medical Tyranny" and a form of "Medical Fascism," where individual liberties are suppressed in the name of public health. The author believes this situation has been intentionally exploited by corrupt officials and corporate interests.
Key Themes and Arguments:
The "Holes and Gaps" Theory:
The Constitution is a finite document that cannot foresee every legal situation that may arise. The author refers to these unforeseen areas as "Holes and Gaps" in the document's protections and powers.
Instead of addressing these gaps through Constitutional amendments as the author believes was intended, the Supreme Court has arrogated the power to interpret the Constitution and effectively create new law through Judicial Review.
This started with Marbury v. Madison (c. 1803), where, despite acknowledging the court did not have the Constitutional authority to hear the case, the court declared that it has the power to say what the law is. She quotes the court: âIt is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.â
According to the author, this action was not authorized and made the Court "despotic."
Judicial Review allows justices to "legislate from the bench," interpreting and ruling on issues outside the Constitution's purview. Examples include corporate personhood, universal healthcare, abortion, and medical emergencies.
âJudicial Activism/Judicial Review/Judicial Interpretation is simply legislating from the bench. Whether it be to discuss corporate personhood or medical emergencies, the courts have given themselves sole discretion over creating law that the Constitution does not address.â
The Problem of Judicial Review:
The author contends that Judicial Review is how the Constitution was effectively âkilled.â She argues it is a power not granted to the judiciary in the Constitution.
The courts have used Judicial Review to give power to the government, while simultaneously shutting down individual arguments. She claims they have no vested authority to rule on things like universal healthcare or corporate personhood.
âUnsurprisingly, they have given power to the Government while shutting down individual arguments repeatedly and whole-heartedly. They had zero vested authority to rule on Universal Healthcare. They had zero vested authority to discuss Corporate PersonhoodâŚThey had zero authority from the people to discuss Medical Tyranny under delegated State Police Powers.â
The Erosion of Individual Liberties During Medical Emergencies:
The 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts Supreme Court case is identified as a crucial point where individual rights were subordinated to the "General Welfare" clause and State Police Powers.
"In Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), they go so far as to state that the ENTIRE BILL OF RIGHTS is null and void in favor of the General Welfare Clause and a Stateâs Police Powers in a rare display of Federalism. They state that the Founding Fathersâ intention of the General Welfare Clause and delegated State Police Powers was to unilaterally allow States to force you into submission via whatever your state Legislature deemed necessary, as long as it was 'reasonable' during times of declared medical emergency."
According to the author, the court ruled that states could force vaccinations and that individual rights end where public health begins. She argues this is a perversion of freedom.
She claims there is nothing in the Constitution that discusses emergency medical situations, leading to the question of who determines what is âreasonableâ. She argues this allows judges to create laws from the bench.
The courts have determined the entire Constitution can be voided if a state declares a medical emergency, as long as the actions are âwithin reason.â
âThey have solely and unilaterally determined that the entire Constitution can be voided if a State declares a medical emergency, as long as it is âwithin reasonâ to do so.â
The Rise of "Medical Tyranny" and "Medical Fascism":
The COVID-19 pandemic is viewed as the catalyst for the implementation of this "Medical Tyranny," where governments have used emergency powers to curtail Civil Rights.
Governors have been granted unilateral control through state statutes during medical emergencies. The author provides an example from Colorado where the governor's emergency powers are not granted by the State Constitution, but by state statutes. She claims he admits this himself.
These emergency powers include curfews, quarantines, closures, and forced vaccinations.
The author highlights the hypocrisy of leaders who make strict rules while disregarding them themselves, stating that they "restricted our travel, but flew on vacations with their families."
The closures of small businesses, churches and schools are seen as intentional, while large corporations like Amazon, Walmart, and Target were allowed to remain open.
âOur schools, churches and restaurants closed while Governors decided that big box stores like Walmart, Target, and Home Depot could stay openâŚBut Amazon stayed open and we witnessed the largest wealth transfer in the shortest period of time happen in the last year.â
The author sees this as a deliberate move to impoverish the public while enriching the powerful.
She argues that the "medical emergency" is fabricated, pointing to CDC data showing that total US deaths were actually lower in 2020.
âThe answer is no. CDC statistics from total US deaths in 2020 are actually slightly lower than recent yearsâŚThere is no tangible medical emergency.â
Election Fraud and Government Corruption:
The author claims the âMedical Tyrannyâ paved the way to stealing the 2020 election via unconstitutional election law rule-making by various governors. She refers to the 2020 election as a "Banana Republic Election."
She provides the example of Colorado, where more people are registered to vote than the actual voting age population.
She states that changes to mail-in voting restrictions led to election fraud. She is critical of government officials who fail to address these issues, calling them a cover-up and distraction.
âSince the rules that changed election laws here are actually unconstitutional, these counties did, in fact, have election fraud occurring due to the relaxing of mail-in registration requirements.â
The Progression Towards Fascism:
The author sees an agenda to enslave the American people, using a loophole in Constitutional Law. She argues that those in power view their constituents as less than human.
She claims there is a "Nazi flavor" to current events based on her study of WWII literature.
âThere is a distinctly Nazi flavor to what I am witnessing, and as someone who has been reading world war two literature since I was seven⌠I see the patterns I have read about oh so much.â
She highlights government censorship, the silencing of dissenting scientists and journalists, and the use of preferred businesses to enforce their narratives as key signs of fascism.
The Path Forward: Bold Solutions and Constitutional Reform:
The author calls for bold solutions, suggesting a Constitutional Convention to address the "Holes and Gaps" in the current Constitution.
âOnce we have removed and appropriately punished treasonous players who nearly killed the Constitution, we must call for a Constitutional Convention.â
She advocates for the following amendments:
Abolish Judicial Review, stating that anything not covered in the Constitution should be automatically ruled in favor of the individual or people.
Address medical freedoms, payments, universal healthcare, and patient rights to prevent medical tyranny.
Guarantee technological freedoms and prevent censorship by corporations.
Limit the government's ability to use State Police Powers for overreach.
She indicates a personal preference for self-rule but recognizes that it may be too radical for most people. She suggests she may release a future report on how to Constitutionally abolish the United States Government if necessary.
Concluding Thoughts:
Maiden Anarchy's analysis presents a highly critical view of the current state of American government and society. She believes that the Constitution has been subverted through the exploitation of loopholes, enabling the rise of a tyrannical regime that controls the lives of the American people under the guise of public health concerns. She calls for immediate and drastic action to reclaim liberty, including a Constitutional Convention to rewrite the fundamental laws of the nation. This document is framed as an urgent call to action, warning of the imminent death of freedom and the possible need for radical solutions. It expresses a deep distrust of government, big tech, and corporate interests. The author is clearly in favor of personal freedom, and individual liberty and freedom and believes those things have been destroyed by current systems of governance.
How did constitutional flaws enable medical tyranny in the US?
Judicial Interpretation: The Supreme Court has taken on the power to interpret cases that fall outside of constitutional protections and powers, a practice the author calls "legislating from the bench". The author argues this power grab started with the case Marbury v. Madison, where the court, despite lacking constitutional authority, granted themselves the power to interpret cases outside of the Constitution's scope.
The author argues that the Constitution was intended to be a stop-gap measure, and issues not addressed within it should be resolved through amendments, not judicial interpretation.
The "Holes and Gaps" Theory: The Constitution does not explicitly cover every legal situation, creating "holes and gaps" that allow the courts to make rulings that expand government power. According to the author, this has led to the courts making decisions on issues that are not explicitly addressed in the Constitution. Some examples include corporate personhood, universal healthcare, abortion, and medical emergencies.
Medical Emergencies and the General Welfare Clause: In Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), the Supreme Court ruled that a state can force vaccinations for the "general welfare". The author claims this ruling effectively nullified the Bill of Rights in favor of the General Welfare Clause and a state's police powers. The author argues that this ruling allowed states to force submission under the guise of "reasonable" measures during a declared medical emergency.
The author believes this ruling was preposterous, as there is nothing in the Constitution that discusses emergency medical situations and who gets to decide what is reasonable. They believe that this ruling paved the way for the medical tyranny the country is currently experiencing.
State Emergency Powers: According to the text, many states have granted unilateral control to a single person or group during medical emergencies. The author uses Colorado as an example, where the governor was given extensive emergency powers via statutes. The author argues that this is unconstitutional, as the Colorado Constitution does not have an amendment that allows for such delegation of powers.
The author argues these emergency powers have allowed for curfews, quarantines, closures, and forced vaccinations, as well as changes to election laws.
Lack of Oversight: The author states that courts have used the Jacobson v. Massachusetts precedent to avoid interfering with state actions during medical emergencies. Courts have simultaneously claimed medical emergencies are outside their jurisdiction while legitimizing state powers during such emergencies. According to the author, this has allowed states to take actions that violate constitutional rights, with little to no oversight.
In summary, the author argues that the combination of judicial overreach, the broad interpretation of the General Welfare Clause, and the delegation of emergency powers to single individuals at the state level, have created a system where constitutional rights can be easily suspended during a declared medical emergency. The author believes that this system has led to the current medical tyranny. The author also argues that this "medical emergency" is not real, and that these measures are actually a ploy to enslave the American people.
What role did Marbury v. Madison play in shaping judicial interpretation?
According to the text, Marbury v. Madison (c. 1803) plays a foundational role in the development of judicial interpretation, also referred to as judicial activism or judicial review. The author argues that the preface, or dicta, of the Marbury v. Madison ruling is considered the legal basis for judicial interpretation as it is known today.
Here's how the author explains the significance of Marbury v. Madison:
The Case: The author states that, in the Marbury v. Madison case, the Supreme Court clarified that it did not have the constitutional authority to rule on the legal issue presented before it. The court acknowledged that the issue was not addressed in the Constitution.
Judicial Power Grab: Despite stating they lacked the constitutional authority to hear the case, the court, in the preface of their opinion, granted themselves the power to interpret cases that fell outside of constitutional protections and powers. The author argues this was a unilateral decision, with the Court simply deciding to anoint themselves with extra-constitutional powers.
"Holes and Gaps" Theory: The author explains that the Constitution is a finite legal document and does not cover every possible legal situation, leaving "holes and gaps" in constitutional protections. The court, in Marbury v. Madison, clarified that there were many "holes and gaps" in the Constitution because the people of each state were unwilling to give too much power to a centralized authority. The author claims that the Constitution was intended to be a stop-gap measure, and issues not addressed within it should be resolved through amendment ratification. However, the court did not take this view.
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.": The author strongly disagrees with this statement made by the court in Marbury v. Madison, arguing that judicial power extends only to cases of law, not to determining what the law is. The author claims the law was already written, and in order to have standing in a legal suit, one must show they have been injured under a specific constitutional guarantee.
Foundation for Judicial Review: The author contends that after Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court began hearing cases that allowed them to whimsically practice judicial review. The author sees this as the beginning of a pivotal shift, where the "holes and gaps" theory started to play a key role in legal precedent and history in the United States.
Thomas Jefferson's Criticism: The author notes that Thomas Jefferson was critical of this new power of judicial review, calling the Supreme Court "despotic" in 1804.
Usurping the Constitution: The author believes this self-granted power to create legislation from the bench has allowed the court to usurp the Constitution.
In summary, the author views the Marbury v. Madison case not as a landmark decision upholding the Constitution, but as the beginning of the Supreme Court's overreach into areas not explicitly granted to them by the Constitution. The author argues that the courtâs decision in Marbury v. Madison set a precedent for judicial activism, which the author believes has led to a weakening of constitutional protections and, ultimately, to the medical tyranny they claim the country is currently experiencing.
What is the âHoles & Gapsâ Theory?
The "Holes and Gaps" Theory of Constitutional Law, as described in the text, refers to the idea that the U.S. Constitution is a finite legal document that does not explicitly cover every possible legal situation that might arise. This leaves "holes and gaps" in constitutional protections and delegated powers, particularly regarding issues not specifically addressed in the Constitution. According to the author, these "holes and gaps" have been exploited by the courts, specifically the Supreme Court, to expand their power and the power of the government.
Here's a breakdown of the key components of this theory:
Limited Scope of the Constitution: The Constitution is not exhaustive and does not explicitly address every legal issue that might come before the courts. The author argues that this was intentional, as the states were wary of giving too much power to a centralized authority.
Judicial Interpretation: The Supreme Court, through the practice of judicial interpretation (also called judicial activism or judicial review), has taken it upon itself to make rulings on issues that fall within these "holes and gaps". The author believes this is a form of "legislating from the bench," as the court is creating law where the Constitution is silent. The author argues this practice began with the Marbury v. Madison case, where the court granted itself the power to interpret cases outside of the Constitution.
Intended Resolution: The author contends that the Constitution was intended to be a temporary measure. Any issues not addressed in the Constitution were meant to be resolved through the amendment ratification process, not by judicial interpretation.
Examples of Issues in the Gaps: According to the author, the courts have used the "holes and gaps" theory to make rulings on issues not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, such as:
Corporate personhood
Universal healthcare
Abortion
Medical emergencies
Expansion of Government Power: By ruling on issues not specifically addressed in the Constitution, the author argues that the courts have expanded the power of the government, while simultaneously limiting individual rights. The author believes this has led to the medical tyranny they claim is currently occurring in the United States.
In essence, the "Holes and Gaps" Theory posits that the Constitution's inability to cover every legal situation has been exploited by the courts, allowing them to effectively rewrite the Constitution through judicial interpretation. The author argues that this has undermined the intended balance of power and led to government overreach, particularly in the area of medical emergencies.
What specific flaws in the US Constitution facilitated medical tyranny?
The author of the text argues that several specific flaws in the U.S. Constitution have facilitated medical tyranny. These flaws, according to the author, allowed for the expansion of government power and the erosion of individual liberties, particularly in the context of medical emergencies. Here are the key flaws identified in the text:
"Holes and Gaps" in Constitutional Coverage: The Constitution is a finite legal document that does not explicitly address every possible legal issue. This leaves "holes and gaps" in constitutional protections, which the courts have exploited. The author argues that the framers intended for issues not covered in the Constitution to be resolved through the amendment process, not judicial interpretation.
Judicial Interpretation/Activism/Review: The Supreme Court has taken on the power to interpret cases that fall outside of constitutional protections and powers, a practice the author refers to as "legislating from the bench". This power grab, according to the author, began with the case Marbury v. Madison (c. 1803), where the court granted itself the authority to interpret cases that the Constitution did not explicitly cover. The author argues that this self-granted power allows the court to effectively rewrite the Constitution.
The General Welfare Clause: The author points to the Supreme Court case Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) as a key example of how the Constitution has been misinterpreted to allow for medical tyranny. In this case, the court ruled that a state can force vaccinations for the "general welfare." The author argues this ruling effectively nullified the Bill of Rights in favor of the General Welfare Clause and a state's police powers. This ruling, in the author's view, allows states to force submission under the guise of "reasonable" measures during a declared medical emergency.
State Police Powers: The author claims the Constitution allows states to exercise broad police powers during declared medical emergencies. The author sees this as a flaw, as it allows states to unilaterally impose restrictions on individual liberties with little oversight. The author argues that these powers have been used to justify actions such as lockdowns, mask mandates, and business closures. The author uses Colorado as an example, where the governor was given extensive emergency powers through state statutes, not through any amendment to the state constitution. The author believes this delegation of power is unconstitutional.
Lack of Constitutional Definition of "Medical Emergency": The Constitution does not define what constitutes a "medical emergency," allowing government officials to declare emergencies based on their own discretion. The author believes that this lack of definition allows the government to suspend constitutional rights without proper justification. According to the author, the courts have used this lack of definition to avoid interfering with state actions during such emergencies.
Delegation of Powers: Many states have delegated extensive emergency powers to a single person, usually the governor. The author argues that this delegation of legislative power to the executive branch is unconstitutional, as it undermines the separation of powers. The author uses Colorado as an example, noting that the state constitution does not have an amendment allowing the governor to have unilateral rule-making powers.
Judicial Deference to State Actions: The courts, according to the author, have used the precedent set in Jacobson v. Massachusetts to avoid interfering with state actions during medical emergencies. The author argues the courts have simultaneously claimed medical emergencies are outside their jurisdiction while legitimizing state powers during such emergencies. This has allowed states to take actions that violate constitutional rights without proper oversight.
In summary, the author contends that the combination of these constitutional flaws, particularly the "holes and gaps" that allow for judicial overreach, the broad interpretation of the General Welfare Clause, and the delegation of emergency powers to individuals at the state level have created a system where constitutional rights can be easily suspended during a declared medical emergency. The author believes that this has led to the current state of medical tyranny.
How did Colorado's Governor gain extensive emergency powers?
According to the text, Colorado's Governor gained extensive emergency powers through a series of state statutes, not through any amendment to the Colorado State Constitution. The author emphasizes that this delegation of power is a key component of how a medical tyranny was established in the state.
Here's a breakdown of how this occurred:
Statutory Delegation of Power: Starting in 1992, and amended several times since then, the Colorado Legislature began passing statutes that granted the Governor extensive emergency powers.
Governor's Acknowledgment: The author cites a memorandum from Governor Polis dated August 11, 2020, in which he admits that his emergency powers under the constitution are limited. The memorandum states that the governor's statutory emergency powers are significantly more extensive, and include the ability to procure supplies, quarantine people and property, and transfer money to the disaster emergency fund.
Rule-Making Authority: The statutes effectively delegated the power of "rule-making," which is a legislative power, to the Governor. This gave rise to the governor's ability to unilaterally impose curfews, quarantines, closures, funding decisions, forced vaccinations, and changes to election laws during medical emergencies.
Constitutional Violation: The author contends that this delegation of power is unconstitutional because it violates Article III of the Colorado Constitution, which is specifically dedicated to the distribution of powers between the branches of government. This article states that no branch of government can exercise powers belonging to another branch, unless expressly permitted by the constitution.
Lack of Amendment: The author asserts that the Colorado State Constitution does not have an amendment that clarifies executive powers to grant the governor such unilateral rule-making authority. Therefore, the statutes do not meet the legal standard required by the state's constitution to be valid.
Court Rulings: The author references the federal court case Lawrence v. Polis (c. 2020), where it was determined that the Colorado legislature has delegated to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) the power to investigate and control the spread of disease, and has vested in the governor the power to declare such an emergency. Despite the court acknowledging that the governorâs emergency powers are derived from statutes and not the state constitution, the court did not intervene.
Medical Emergency Loophole: The author argues that the government is able to get away with this by declaring an "unprecedented medical emergency". Citing the Jacobson v. Massachusetts case, courts are essentially deferring to the state by claiming the issue is outside of their jurisdiction, while simultaneously legitimizing the state's power during a medical emergency.
In summary, according to the author, the Governor of Colorado gained extensive emergency powers through statutory delegation from the legislature, which the author argues is a clear violation of the Colorado State Constitution, because there is no constitutional amendment that grants the governor such powers. The author also argues that the courts have allowed this by deferring to the state, and using the Jacobson v. Massachusetts case as justification for not interfering during a medical emergency.