Posted on 05/20/2020 9:46:12 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz joined “Tucker Carlson Tonight” Wednesday to discuss the constitutionality of forcing members of the public to be vaccinated against the coronavirus, should a vaccine become available.
Host Tucker Carlson began the segment by acknowledging the argument that people “don’t have a right to endanger other people, your right to punch ends at the tip of my nose” before asking Dershowitz whether “the government has a right to endanger” people who may have an adverse reaction to a vaccine by forcing them to take it.
“The Supreme Court has said yes, and if the case came to the Supreme Court today, they would say yes, it would either be 9-0 or 8-1,” Dershowitz responded. “It is not a debatable issue constitutionally. Look, they have a right to draft you and put your life in danger to help the country. The police power of the state is very considerable.”
Dershowitz added that he agrees with the “moral argument” that no one should be subject to vaccine that has not been fully vetted on the chance it could help other people and noted that he wouldn’t want people to submit to a vaccine unless it is proven safe. …
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Alan is showing a lack of professorship. Prof. Kingsfield from the Paper Chase would never let it go at that. There is always “OTOH”. (On the other hand). Yes, there are Supreme Court decisions describing all kinds of things. Like Plessy v Ferguson (1896) said segregated schools were fine, but then Brown v. Bd of Edn. (1954) came along and said separate but equal is inherently unequal. Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote “3 generations of imbeciles are enough” (Buck v Bell, 1927) and thus allowed sterilization of mentally deficient people. But the “powers that be” decided to not exercise such draconian measures because the Nazis were pulling similar crap in their eugenics programs.
There have not been harsh rules enforcing universal vaccinations nor banning home schooling, two examples where government “could” “maybe” get by with enforcing police power (health safety, or morals).
But the smart government does not push We the People too hard or too far, lest we revolt or disobey.
This new breed of Governors, Mayors, and other power mad local yokels are about to get their clocks cleaned.
Yes, but we were not told we could not go out without those.
Yes, the State has the power, but not the right.
Totally agree...
AMEN.
I would ask those writing about shooting someone who comes to your door, what's the next step after that? Think this through.
I would recommend to all, but especially to those who are having babies, to do so at home with midwives, and get as traditional/natural/herbal with your healthcare as you possibly can.
Teleschooling is just letting Big Brother into your home. Choose to see this as an opportunity to start homeschooling.
Read or listen to the Book of Revelation.
Eh, no thanks. Certain businesses and institutions requiring the vaccine, as they do for other diseases, is fine with me. But requiring it simply as a condition of living in the USA is a big no-no for me.
Yes, the lead does work better and will win the argument.
Forced vaccination happened in 1945. I was six years old and preparing to enter first grade. There was a caveat though. To enroll in school you had to have proof of a smallpox vaccination. Yep, the tale-tale scar on your upper arm. Without it no tickie no laundry—you were sent home until you got the vaccination.
Sounded to me like Dershowitz agrees with forced vaccination & yet doesn’t agree.
” Look, they have a right to draft you and put your life in danger to help the country.”
They don’t have ‘rights’, only the people do.
Nope!
It works when I say it works.
Do businesses have the right to be in business if they demand vaccinations??
Does Dersh not GET the irony here, considering what the Nazis did to his people, i.e., forced EVERYTHING on them — including ghoulish medical experiments?
Infiltrate and gain control of big business.The line between corporations and government has been more than blurred for the better part of a century. Expecting the government to “stop” what it has predetermined for corporations to do is to see things in reverse.
— Communist goal #37 for the USA
Its not happening at our house Dersh.
FWIR, in the 80s, it was diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis and an oral polio vaccine.
Jacobson v Massachusetts, 197 US 11, 25-29 (1905)
We come, then, to inquire whether any right given, or secured by the Constitution, is invaded by the statute as interpreted by the state court. The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the State subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best; and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person. But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others. This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that "persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State; of the perfect right of the legislature to do which no question ever was, or upon acknowledged general principles ever can be made, so far as natural persons are concerned." Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465, 471; Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Haber, 169 U. S. 613, 628, 629; Thorpe v. Rutland & Burlington R. R., 27 Vermont, 140, 148. In Crowley v Christensen, 137 U. S. 86, 89, we said:"The possession and enjoyment of all rights are subject to such reasonable conditions as may be deemed by the governing authority of the country essential to the safety, health, peace, good order and morals of the community. Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one's own will. It is only freedom from restraint under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others. It is then liberty regulated by law." In the constitution of Massachusetts adopted in 1780 it was laid down as a fundamental principle of the social compact that the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for "the common good," and that government is instituted "for the common good, for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people, and not for the profit, honor or private interests of any one man, family or class of men." The good and welfare of the Commonwealth, of which the legislature is primarily the judge, is the basis on which the police power rests in Massachusetts. Commonwealth v. Alger, 7 Cush. 53, 84.
Applying these principles to the present case, it is to be observed that the legislature of Massachusetts required the inhabitants of a city or town to be vaccinated only when, in the opinion of the Board of Health, that was necessary for the public health or the public safety. The authority to determine for all what ought to be done in such an emergency must have been lodged somewhere or in some body; and surely it was appropriate for the legislature to refer that question, in the first instance, to a Board of Health, composed of persons residing in the locality affected and appointed, presumably, because of their fitness to determine such questions. To invest such a body with authority over such matters was not an unusual nor an unreasonable or arbitrary requirement. Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members. It is to be observed that when the regulation in question was adopted, smallpox, according to the recitals in the regulation adopted by the Board of Health, was prevalent to some extent in the city of Cambridge and the disease was increasing. If such was the situation—and nothing is asserted or appears in the record to the contrary—if we are to attach any value whatever to the knowledge which, it is safe to affirm, is common to all civilized peoples touching smallpox and the methods most usually employed to eradicate that disease, it cannot be adjudged that the present regulation of the Board of Health was not necessary in order to protect the public health and secure the public safety. Smallpox being prevalent and increasing' at Cambridge, the court would usurp the functions of another branch of government if it adjudged, as matter of law, that the mode adopted under the sanction of the State, to protect the people at large, was arbitrary and not justified by the necessities of the case. We say necessities of the case, because it might be that an acknowledged power of a local community to protect itself against an epidemic threatening the safety of all, might be exercised in particular circumstances and in reference to particular persons in such an arbitrary, unreasonable manner, or might go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public, as to authorize or compel the courts to interfere for the protection of such persons. Wisconsin &c. R. R. Co. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 287, 301; 1 Dillon Mun. Corp., 4th ed., §§ 319 to 325, and authorities in notes; Freund's Police Power, § 63 et seq. In Railroad Company v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465, 471-473, this court recognized the right of a State to pass sanitary laws, laws for the protection of life, liberty, health or property within its limits, laws to prevent persons and animals suffering under contagious or infectious diseases, or convicts, from coming within its borders. But as the laws there6 involved went beyond the necessity of the case and under the guise of exerting a police power invaded the domain of Federal authority and violated rights secured by the Constitution, this court deemed it to be its duty to hold such laws invalid. If the mode adopted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the protection of its local communities against smallpox proved to be distressing, inconvenient or objectionable to some—if nothing more could be reasonably affirmed of the statute in question—the answer is that it was the duty of the constituted authorities primarily to keep in view the welfare, comfort and safety of the many, and not permit the interests of the many to be subordinated to the wishes or convenience of the few. There is, of course, a sphere within which the individual may assert the supremacy of his own will and rightfully dispute the authority of any human government, especially of any free government existing under a written constitution, to interfere with the exercise of that will. But it is equally true that in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great, dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.
Louisiana v Texas, 176 US 1, 21 (1900)
Provision was made for the detention of persons, and vessels, and for the disinfection of vessels and their cargoes and passengers arriving at the ports of Texas from any infected port. or district, and for rules and regulations in regard thereto, "the object of such rules and regulations being to provide safety for the public health of the State without unnecessary restriction upon commerce and travel."It is not charged that this statute is invalid nor could it be if tested by its terms. While it is true that the power vested in Congress to regulate commerce among the States is a power complete in itself, acknowledging no limitations other than those prescribed in the Constitution, and that where the action of the States in the exercise of their reserved powers comes into collision with it, the latter must give way, yet it is also true that quarantine laws belong to that class of state legislation which is valid until displaced by Congress, and that such legislation has been expressly recognized by the laws of the United States almost from the beginning of the Government.
They won't be going door to door.....All they have to do is tie it to your state's motor vehicle file. No vaccination, no drivers license or license plate renewal.......
Great points!
Here’s some ways to read Revelation (An automatic Blessing from God if one listens or reads out loud)). . .the youtube has the whole Bible as well with pictures for each chapter as well as the verses listed below.
https://www.biblegateway.com/audio/dramatized/niv/Rev.1
https://www.youtube.com/user/ALLAUDIOBIBLE/videos
Or Dip/Tet like the woman in Raising Arizona called it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.