Covid-19 and The Law
Can the State force human behavior on the basis of the opinions of modern medical scientists?
The essential need is for the protection of the civil rights of human beings, and their children’s children’s children, unto seven generations.
To help give some context, let me generate an imaginative scenario, that could actually take place.
A rally is held by alleged Trump supporters, where intentional violations of State authority are challenged, as regards the wearing of masks, social distancing, remaining in place, and coming soon to a Theater-Absurd near us all: forced vaccinations.
Arrests are made. In defense of the arrested, the authority of the State is challenged, on the basis that modern medicine is less science and more religion than people have been willing to recognized. The existence of the virus and its contagious nature, are scientifically untrue, such that the political-media hysteria that followed is based on bad science.
This being the case, it is the right of the people – under the ninth and tenth amendments – to refuse to consent to being ruled by bad science, and fear, joined at the hip to greed, … and, anointed by media hysteria and political ineptitude.
Normally, in the courts, we have various experts appear, who are expected to not agree, and the legal/truth issue is then considered/allowed to be ruled upon, by a jury, or a judge. By offered pre-agreement, in the above case, the defense team accepts/urges that the State put up its three best experts, and the defense will put up none … although … the defense will challenge their “expertise” through a process called voir dire.
While legally the State can pick its own experts (in America, under the U. S. Constitution) , the defense points out that it would certainly be suggestive of a guilty conscience if the State did not offer Dr. Fauci as one of their experts. The Media had been claiming he was the leading expert on these kinds of diseases, so let him come in a Court of Law, and swear under oath.
In case the State does not offer him, the defense will call on Dr. Fauci, to testify for them. In this venue he might not always wear his usual kind of subtle happy go lucky grin: “I’m the center of attention, and I like it”.
Such witness can be treated as “hostile” to the defense, which gives a lot of latitude to the nature of the questions, such as being “leading”. For example, a hypothetical question, that may assume a fact not yet in evidence, can be given to the “expert”. The State by putting up the witness already ties itself to what their own witness offers. By not putting Fauci up, the State will look like the fools they really are.
Skillful questioning will easily elicit the differences between the arts-medical, and the pure science of chemistry, physics, and mathematics. Inquiry is made into the philosophical/epistemological basis for the general ideas of the nature of the human being to which the expert him/or herself has committed.
Do they believe in Big Bang cosmology, or Neo-Darwinian evolution? What is the difference between theory and knowledge. An examination is taken of the “experts” knowledge (or not) of the history of how modern materialistic science came to the conclusion that all is matter, there is no spirit.
The kinds/content of the answers are maps to the next areas of the theories of medical science that are to be explored. For example, is the “expert” religious, and if so how are his fundamental concepts about health also their own kind of “religion”.
How this unfolds in Court can not be exactly predicted. At the same time, to a knowledgeable person the logical fault lines in modern medicine can be uncovered, with the result that a proper Socratic Method will get the expert witness to damn their own discipline, to himself and thus to us.