Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
F3SS

Dershowitz: Forced Vaccinations are Constitut

95 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

F3SS
  •  
Quote

 

  • "Let me put it very clearly, you have no constitutional right to endanger the public and spread disease, even if you disagree," he said. "You have no right not to be vaccinated, you have no right not to wear a mask, you have no right to open up your business."

 

  •  "And if you refuse to be vaccinated, the state has the power to literally take you to a doctor's office and plunge a needle into your arm."

 

  • "That's what a democracy is about," he said. "If the majority of the people agree and support that, for public health measures, you have to be vaccinated, you have to be vaccinated. They should give you an alternative. The alternative is to live in your home, don't get vaccinated, but never ever leave your home or live in a bubble. But if you want to interact with other people, you cannot become Typhoid Mary. The Constitution doesn't give you the right to spread your illness to other people."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/power-to-plunge-a-needle-into-your-arm-dershowitz-says-forced-vaccinations-are-constitutional

 

I've never given a lot of thought towards the issue of vaccines but as soon as I hear I don't have a choice I've immediately made up my mind. Honestly I've pretty much figured before right now that I'm not likely to get a vaccine. I've never had a flu shot either. My kids have been heavily vaccinated already. I trust the doctors and have always felt ok about because were given a choice. So a lot of mixed emotions about children and mandatory vaccines. I just hate mandates. They have the power to plunge a needle in your arm? My ass! The cops gonna come drag me out? How about 50 million others? I especially don't want a vaccine that hasn't been around for several years at least. I'll let you all be the guinea pigs for a while. And how does his Typhoid Mary analogy work? Wouldn't only the unvaccinated be at risk to each other? That's a risk we accepted and aren't those who choose to vaccinate safe from us? 

I'm surprised that Dershowitz said this but maybe I don't know home so well. It's a very elitist statement and ruling this constitutional is a huge power grab and the slipperiest of slopes.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
Posted (edited)

It's an interesting thing with vaccines. Schools mandate what vaccines your kids need to have to attend school, so it's a "choice". 

I don't really feel strongly about people being forced to be vaccinated. It's useful for society. 

But I do think that the guy you're quoting does not understand democracy or our system.

The founding fathers went to great lengths to ensure that there would be no "tyranny of the majority", that is the whole purpose of the bill of rights, the idea that your rights are protected as an individual regardless of what the majority says. 

Also why we have checks and balances like a house based on population and a Senate where all states get 2 senators regardless the size. 

 

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS
13 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

It's an interesting thing with vaccines. Schools mandate what vaccines your kids need to have to attend school, so it's a "choice". 

I don't really feel strongly about people being forced to be vaccinated. It's useful for society. 

But I do think that the guy you're quoting does not understand democracy or our system.

The founding fathers went to great lengths to ensure that there would be no "tyranny of the majority", that is the whole purpose of the bill of rights, the idea that your rights are protected as an individual regardless of what the majority says. 

Also why we have checks and balances like a house based on population and a Senate where all states get 2 senators regardless the size. 

 

It sure is a muddled subject but as an adult of 40 years old I can't accept mandatory shots for myself

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bison

Not everyone can receive a vaccine. Infants and those with compromised immune systems, typically can not  They are vulnerable to acquiring a disease from those who could, but do not receive a vaccine. These persons may have a disease, but not yet have symptoms, so would not know to isolate themselves, so as not to infect others.

Freedom is not an absolute. Living in society involves small limits on freedom, and certain responsibilities. We are not free to drive recklessly, or with excessive speed, or while intoxicated, or otherwise endanger others. Vaccines are tested thoroughly before they are used widely. The risks from which they protect us are far greater than that from receiving a vaccine.   

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS
17 minutes ago, bison said:

Not everyone can receive a vaccine. Infants and those with compromised immune systems, typically can not  They are vulnerable to acquiring a disease from those who could, but do not receive a vaccine. These persons may have a disease, but not yet have symptoms, so would not know to isolate themselves, so as not to infect others.

Freedom is not an absolute. Living in society involves small limits on freedom, and certain responsibilities. We are not free to drive recklessly, or with excessive speed, or while intoxicated, or otherwise endanger others. Vaccines are tested thoroughly before they are used widely. The risks from which they protect us are far greater than that from receiving a vaccine.   

So you'd be the first in line for the brand new covid vaccine? At the very least wait a few years to see what does or doesn't happen to those who took it.

And to your first point, if not everyone can receive one how do they force a person like myself with very limited hospital records to take one? Do they also spend the time and resources to thoroughly run a gauntlet of tests on me before they stick me with a needle that might screw me over?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
1 hour ago, F3SS said:

They have the power to plunge a needle in your arm? My ass!

Well, maybe you get that choice.

It surprises me that Dershowitz took this stand.  He has a very conservative view of the Constitution.  You might know him from defending President Trump.

40 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

But I do think that the guy you're quoting does not understand democracy or our system.

The founding fathers went to great lengths to ensure that there would be no "tyranny of the majority", that is the whole purpose of the bill of rights, the idea that your rights are protected as an individual regardless of what the majority says. 

Might check up on Deshowitz.  As I said, he is Very Conservative and also  one of the foremost Constitutional Law experts.  He knows the ins and outs of our democracy as well as anybody.

I don't think the Bill of Rights says anything about a choice for vaccinations.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
23 minutes ago, 19_Kilo said:

I agree with Dershowitz.

Well then I think you disagree with Dershowitz.

 

30 minutes ago, F3SS said:

It sure is a muddled subject but as an adult of 40 years old I can't accept mandatory shots for myself

What will happen when it is not the government telling you but your insurance company?  What will you do if they say either all members of your family get vaccinated or no insurance? You are free to choose.

You can have your freedom, they have the freedom not to insure you.  They might even threaten to raise the rates your employer has to pay for all employees because you bring a hazard to the workplace.  If you are not singularly valuable, you might not have a job..

People worry a lot about the government but seldom realize how much effect corporate rules have on our lives.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
30 minutes ago, 19_Kilo said:

Somebody tries to stick a needle in me that I don't want, they better bring more than a couple guys. And they'd do well to be armed.

Or they just tell you not to report to work  anymore, and no eligibility for unemployment.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bison

Some very public-spirited citizens volunteer to have the vaccine tested on themselves, in order to prove that it is safe for the general public. Doctors and medical researchers are in the business of helping people, not harming them. 

A person would already know if they had a compromised immune system. They would be quite ill, and under a doctor's care.They would very likely have suffered a number of maladies, due to their body's inability to defend itself from disease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS
20 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

It surprises me that Dershowitz took this stand.  He has a very conservative view of the Constitution.  You might know him from defending President Trump.

I said in the op that I'm surprised too. Anyhow you're coming up with a litany of reasons to get the shot but there's a huge difference between compelling and mandating. You don't think this would have to spend some time in the supreme court?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
1 minute ago, 19_Kilo said:

Negative on that noise, amigo. I have my own business.

Lucky you.  Got a business license?  Got insurance?

I saw my dad's business permit revoked when the governor of Texas decided oil field waste management didn't look like good publicity for the Texas oil industry. They didn't want people to know the messes they were leaving behind  out in West Texas.

Sounds strange, but instead of cleaning up, they wanted to hide it.  Course that was 30 years ago.  Times have changed, governments not so much.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
5 minutes ago, F3SS said:

I said in the op that I'm surprised too. Anyhow you're coming up with a litany of reasons to get the shot but there's a huge difference between compelling and mandating. You don't think this would have to spend some time in the supreme court?

I think he might convince them he is right.

My personal opinion is that no government will go that far.  I think it more likely that when hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake for corporations they will act and tell the government to leave them alone and they will handle it themselves.

.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
9 minutes ago, 19_Kilo said:

Good thing I'm singularly valuable, I guess.

Yes that is a good thing.  I wish you well.  Thanks for serving

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee
2 hours ago, F3SS said:

Wouldn't only the unvaccinated be at risk to each other?

 

this is the crazy thing about vaccination promotion... trying to demonize those who don't want it or disagree with it...

IF a vaccination works then aren't those who have it fully protected..?

It seems not...:unsure2: 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

 

Let's just remember that Coronavirus is not as serious as the fearmongers (with an agenda) want to make out...

Yes it's a nasty virus bur 80% of those who get it will have it mild to moderate... of the other 20% the elderly and those with underlying health conditions are most at risk and in the wider scheme of things the death rate isn't through the roof.... all the measures taken like Lockdown were supposed to be to SLOW DOWN the spread so the Hospitals could cope... but it created the perception that it was more dangerous than it is...

IMO... a mandatory vaccine is not needed.... but there may be something else going on with all this ??? Maybe bringing in nano chipping of the human population... through the back door...

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

Sounds like another pro-choice/pro-life argument.    Do people have freedom to chose what to do with their bodies or should the government step in to preserve the lives of others?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

I don't think the Bill of Rights says anything about a choice for vaccinations.

That's one of the diverse possibilities of potential overreach that are covered by 2A.  

Also, I find it interesting that such a mandate by government would be considered well founded and for the good of the nation.  How far are we away from another demand from a government that we receive an identifying mark or we aren't allowed to buy or sell?  Sound familiar?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Or they just tell you not to report to work  anymore, and no eligibility for unemployment.  

Christians have known this was coming for a LONG time.  Choices will have to be made and if one chooses on the side of allowing government control for the sake of comfort or employment then there is no going back from that :(  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
4 hours ago, F3SS said:

the state has the power to literally take you to a doctor's office and plunge a needle into your arm."

And the citizen has the right to fight back with any available means.  Pity the "state" employees who come under that kind of fire.  That is coming.  Sooner or later, the gobment is going to try to do what Whitmer and Newsom are doing except on a broader scale and then all hell is going to break loose.  I suspect we'll see it not too long after the next Proglodyte is elected to the Oval Office.  They've shown themselves capable of massive overreach and are too stupid to understand that it only serves to make them targets of a motivated opposition.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Hmm.. I'm a little bit confused by this. 

If you have a group of people - say at a school, or a workplace. If some elect NOT to get inoculated against a specific virus, then what is the harm ? THEY will be vulnerable to the virus, but their (inoculated) colleagues would be immune. Hence even if the non-inoculated people get the disease, they won't be able to spread it to the inoculated people. They can only spread it to their fellow non-inoculated colleagues ? 

So where is the public risk ? 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbenol
2 hours ago, bee said:

 

this is the crazy thing about vaccination promotion... trying to demonize those who don't want it or disagree with it...

IF a vaccination works then aren't those who have it fully protected..?

It seems not...:unsure2: 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm.. I'm a little bit confused by this. 

If you have a group of people - say at a school, or a workplace. If some elect NOT to get inoculated against a specific virus, then what is the harm ? THEY will be vulnerable to the virus, but their (inoculated) colleagues would be immune. Hence even if the non-inoculated people get the disease, they won't be able to spread it to the inoculated people. They can only spread it to their fellow non-inoculated colleagues ? 

So where is the public risk ? 

 

4 hours ago, bison said:

Not everyone can receive a vaccine. Infants and those with compromised immune systems, typically can not  They are vulnerable to acquiring a disease from those who could, but do not receive a vaccine. These persons may have a disease, but not yet have symptoms, so would not know to isolate themselves, so as not to infect others.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
2 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

So where is the public risk ?

IMO, it's not really about public risk.  It's about government control.  Just look at California and Michigan to see what the Left is capable of in using their power to subdue and punish people who simply refuse to be controlled.  That idiot in LA is on the record saying the city won't be "fully open" until a cure is found.  The politicians in California seem to have a strategy for taking care of their budgetary nightmares.  Crash the economy and demand Federal bailouts.  If they stay on this track, it's possible that California may well be in play again soon. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
18 minutes ago, and then said:

IMO, it's not really about public risk.  It's about government control.  Just look at California and Michigan to see what the Left is capable of in using their power to subdue and punish people who simply refuse to be controlled.  That idiot in LA is on the record saying the city won't be "fully open" until a cure is found.  The politicians in California seem to have a strategy for taking care of their budgetary nightmares.  Crash the economy and demand Federal bailouts.  If they stay on this track, it's possible that California may well be in play again soon. 

Well, indeed @and then. So far as I am aware, we have never found a 'cure' for ANY virus... ever. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Well, indeed @and then. So far as I am aware, we have never found a 'cure' for ANY virus... ever. 

So what happened with smallpox?

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
42 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

So what happened with smallpox?

Vaccination. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.