If you ever want to see the extremes to which those that worship the state rather than the Creator, exhibit A is attorney Alan Dershowitz, who told an interviewer that if the state decided to usurp their authority and infringe on your liberty, it could literally take you to a doctor and plunge a needle in your arm.

Harvard Law School emeritus professor Alan Dershowitz claimed that the provision of the 10th Amendment allows for the state to forcibly vaccinate you under suspicious claims of a contagious disease.

“Let me put it very clearly, you have no constitutional right to endanger the public and spread the 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.”

I’m sorry but the fact is the Tenth Amendment speaks of the states AND the people, two different things and the state has zero right to inject you with a foreign substance, period, but you have the right to inject agents of the state with lead and copper if they attempt to violate you in such a manner.

Jason Goodman, the man who interviewed Dershowitz, said if the government decides “you have to be vaccinated, we have to be vaccinated.”

“Absolutely,” Dershowitz replied. “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.”

Where is that in the Constitution?” Goodman asked.

Dershowitz clarified that if a person is threatened with a deadly disease that is not contagious, he can refuse treatment.

“But you have no right to refuse to be vaccinated against a contagious disease,” he said.

“Public health, the police power of the Constitution gives the state the power to compel that,” Dershowitz said. “And there are cases in the United States Supreme Court.”

Yes, he never cites the Constitution.

As I ask readers and listeners on The Sons Of Liberty radio show, “Article, Section and Clause, please?”

Notice, Dershowitz didn’t cite any real authority or a portion of the Constitution because it does not exist.

He only points to “cases after cases after cases.”

Well, that’s fine and dandy, but the problem is many cases result in injustices, activism from the bench and just plain tyranny.

The law is what is to be pointed at.

Sadly, Dershowitz doesn’t know the law or he would actually cite the section of the Constitution that allows that.  He doesn’t and so he is in make up the law as you go territory, which makes him a state worshipper and an enemy of liberty.

Art Moore adds:

The Supreme Court has recognized each state’s “police power” – defining “police” as polity or government rather than law enforcement specifically – which gives the state authority to enact health laws, including quarantine and vaccination requirements, to protect public health.

The argument against forcible vaccination is based on the 14th Amendment’s provision that no state “shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

But Dershowitz points to the Supreme Court’s Jacobson v. Massachusetts decision in 1905, which concluded a state may require vaccination if the board of health deems it necessary for public health or safety.

The court found the police power of a state included reasonable regulations established by the legislature to protect public health and safety.

The regulations didn’t violate the 14th Amendment right to liberty, the court said, because they fell within the restraints to which everyone is subject for the common good.

If any individual is allowed to act without regard to the welfare of others, true liberty does not exist, the court argued.

More than a century later, the Jacobson decision “has not been revisited in any meaningful way,” noted the AMA Journal of Ethics in 2006.

It has stood all this time, not allowing “a single individual to refuse vaccination while he or she remains within the general population on the grounds that to make such an exception would strip the legislative branch of its function to care for the public health and safety when threatened by epidemic disease,” wrote Sarah Fujiwara, MD, then a student at DePaul University College of Law and an intern at the American Medical Association.

“This ruling prevails despite occasional injurious results from vaccinations and the impossibility of determining whether a particular person can be safely vaccinated,” she wrote.

“The only exception to a mandatory vaccination is an offer of apparent or reasonably certain proof to the state’s board of health that the vaccination would seriously impair health or probably cause death.”

Again, a ruling that does not cite the law, is not a lawful ruling.  It’s good for propaganda and the enforcement of the police state and tyranny, but it does nothing for liberty.

Dershowitz should be marked an enemy of liberty and the people, and so should anyone siding with him.

Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media