This article may be shared freely.
Articles over the years, including very recent ones, point out that vaccine policies violate the Nuremberg Code. Writers go into great detail explaining why vaccine mandates violate the Code and why counterarguments are unpersuasive. I agree! This article addresses a different point, the widespread misunderstanding of the legal application of the Code.
First, legal matters concern the proper interpretation and application of law. According to Wikipedia (which in this instance is actually true to the best of my knowledge): “The [Nuremberg] Code has not been officially accepted as law by any nation or as official ethics guidelines by any association.” The Nuremberg Code has no binding effect on anyone because it’s not law. State and federal courts are free to ignore it—indeed, they must in situations where strict application of current law is required. Thus, the Nuremberg Code is a persuasive document only. For legal purposes, it’s most effective use may be in the political process, to convince legislators to support or oppose proposed legislation as appropriate with respect to any specific bill.
The Nuremberg Code has, however, influenced U.S. law. Some statutes have copied language from the Code, and there are laws that address similar concerns. But the laws that incorporate Nuremberg Code language apply only in the jurisdictions where they were enacted, and only to situations within the scope of the specific language of each particular law as a whole. So while we’re free to insist that certain laws, policies, or government acts violate the Nuremberg Code, Courts and other authorities are free to disagree, or to ignore the Code even if they do agree, as it doesn’t require them to do anything.
A similar issue arises when we point out that a particular policy, law, or government action is unconstitutional. Let’s face it: When fake science is used to impose medical mandates that kill and disable millions of people unnecessarily and with no real accountability for those responsible, one could very reasonably argue that such laws and behaviors are not merely unconstitutional, they are criminal, even genocidal at times. Yet, our cry of “unconstitutional” is, for any formal legal purpose, only an opinion. As such, it has no teeth, no ability to require anyone to do anything about the problem. You see, laws are presumed to be Constitutional unless and until a court declares otherwise in a formal court ruling; and court rulings can be appealed, and appeals appealed… So, however obvious it may be to us that a law is unconstitutional, it is nevertheless “good law,” deemed to be Constitutional and enforceable as long as it remains “on the books.” To fix such problems requires persuading a court to strike the law in a formal court ruling or a legislature to amend or repeal the law through the legislative process. While this is frustratingly inconvenient for those of us who see the obvious unconstitutionality of vaccine laws, if simply declaring a law unconstitutional made it so, there would be no Constitutional laws; each person would be “a law unto himself” as a late 1800’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling put it. And getting the matter into court isn’t straightforward, either. There has to be a plaintiff, someone directly affected by the alleged unconstitutional law, as courts can’t address hypothetical situations.
The Nuremberg Code’s greatest power may lie outside of formal legal and political processes altogether. Our repeatedly pointing out how vaccine laws violate the Code may serve as a valuable wake-up call enabling the sleeping masses to awaken more quickly to the reality that big pharma is profiting at the expense of our health and lives with no real accountability. So, I am certainly not saying the Code can’t help us; I’m seeking only to clarify its strengths and limitations in that regard so that we can maximize the effectiveness of our use of it.
A final note: As important as it is to understand our rights, those rights mean nothing without reliable legal systems to enforce them. Sadly, the elite substantially control these systems. The real science and law just don’t apply to them. Whenever it really matters to their agenda, outcomes are predetermined, the real science and law suppressed, ignored, or overridden. They who can “suicide” people they deem problematic, with impunity, can also bribe or coerce judges, legislators, governors, and others as needed to advance their agenda. We see more than the sleeping masses see, but we, too, are controlled, “managed” to keep us from stopping them. The primary tool for that is psychological manipulation. See Fear vs. Knowledge (https://vaccinerights.com/fearvsknowledge) for an introduction to the psychological manipulation of both sleeper and aware communities. The same psychology that hides the problem from the masses also hides real solutions from us. Until we address this, our ever-greater activism work will continue to be met by an ever-accelerating pharma agenda, as has occurred for some decades now.
With gratitude,
Alan Phillips, J.D.
Vaccine Rights Legal Expert
Friends, I Need Your Help! Please consider a one-time or small monthly donation to help keep these articles coming. Any amount helps!
More Exemption Articles: vaccinerights.com/articles, and vaccinerights.substack.com/archive
Have an exemption question? Email alan@vaccinerights.com. Some questions may be addressed in future articles (with anonymity).
Alan Phillips, J.D., is the nation’s leading vaccine exemption legal expert, the only person who’s ever worked fulltime as an attorney with exemptions, in all 3 dozen different exemption contexts and sub-contexts (indeed, the only one who can name ½ of them), and with clients, attorneys, legislators, and activists nationally concerning exemption rights for over two decades. For more information see vaccinerights.com.