As to your first and second questions, I'm pretty sure they are - the vaccines could be contaminated by accident, or lack of monitoring of processing (negligence), or just a devil-may-care attitude (recklessness). If they were to knowingly contaminate the vaccines with poison, fully knowing the effects, and this could be proven with clea…
As to your first and second questions, I'm pretty sure they are - the vaccines could be contaminated by accident, or lack of monitoring of processing (negligence), or just a devil-may-care attitude (recklessness). If they were to knowingly contaminate the vaccines with poison, fully knowing the effects, and this could be proven with clear and convincing evidence, and HHS chose to follow up with real enforcement - in that agency's sole and absolute discretion - then something might happen. It does appear to have the power to block such redress, as the PREP Act was passed by Congress and signed into law, and that enlarges the scope of the powers delegated to that agency.
As to your 10th Amendment example, this does not be an example of commandeering, as set out in Printz. Of course, the existence of HHS and most of the rest of the Administrative State falls outside of the ambit of the 10th Amendment, see https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1243&context=ndlr - at least in my mostly Antifederalist opinion. Advocates of Double Government, specifically the National Security State, might view the matter differently - https://fletcher.tufts.edu/sites/default/files/pubs_glennon-michael-national-security-double-government.pdf I think most of our present trouble lies in the existence of this Double Government. As to pharma advertising, that's covered by the First Amendment under the doctrine of corporate personhood, which could be remedied by legislative action, to reversion to status quo ante, see https://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/ Since these corporations effectively own the government(s) - and a consortium of corporations are trying to do the same for global governance via "stakeholder capitalism", "public-private patrnerships", and other such flotsam and jetsam floated by Klaus Schwab and his World Economic Forum - some changes which would strike at the root of this would have to occur...
As to your first and second questions, I'm pretty sure they are - the vaccines could be contaminated by accident, or lack of monitoring of processing (negligence), or just a devil-may-care attitude (recklessness). If they were to knowingly contaminate the vaccines with poison, fully knowing the effects, and this could be proven with clear and convincing evidence, and HHS chose to follow up with real enforcement - in that agency's sole and absolute discretion - then something might happen. It does appear to have the power to block such redress, as the PREP Act was passed by Congress and signed into law, and that enlarges the scope of the powers delegated to that agency.
As to your 10th Amendment example, this does not be an example of commandeering, as set out in Printz. Of course, the existence of HHS and most of the rest of the Administrative State falls outside of the ambit of the 10th Amendment, see https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1243&context=ndlr - at least in my mostly Antifederalist opinion. Advocates of Double Government, specifically the National Security State, might view the matter differently - https://fletcher.tufts.edu/sites/default/files/pubs_glennon-michael-national-security-double-government.pdf I think most of our present trouble lies in the existence of this Double Government. As to pharma advertising, that's covered by the First Amendment under the doctrine of corporate personhood, which could be remedied by legislative action, to reversion to status quo ante, see https://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/ Since these corporations effectively own the government(s) - and a consortium of corporations are trying to do the same for global governance via "stakeholder capitalism", "public-private patrnerships", and other such flotsam and jetsam floated by Klaus Schwab and his World Economic Forum - some changes which would strike at the root of this would have to occur...