Are Mandatory Vaccines Unconstitutional?

While there are millions of Patriotic Americans who believe that it is their constitutional right to refuse vaccinations, based on religious or personal beliefs, or simply their right to decide for themselves, there are those who are trying to force-feed vaccinations down our throats, making them mandatory.

And these Vaccinators wish to penalize those who do not toe the line.

One such person is Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz who has shown his true colors. He is obviously not for We the People, although he couches his comments in a way to make it seem that is the case…because it is being done for our ‘safety.’

Dershowitz, a liberal, said, “Let me put it very clearly, you have no constitutional right to endanger the public and spread disease, even if you disagree. 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.”

He doubled down by saying, “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.”

I am not an attorney, as is Dershowitz.

US Constitution FlagNevertheless, I have read our U.S. Constitution several times, as well as the Federalist papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers, along with some biographies of several Founders, including that of my 1st cousin (6x removed), Patrick Henry.

In terms of trust, I would much rather listen to those who established our country, our Founders.

Here is what two of my favorite Founders (I have lots of favorites) had to say that seem applicable:

Thomas Jefferson, principal author of our Declaration of Independence and our third president, stated, “The policy of American government is to leave its citizens free, neither restraining them nor aiding them in their pursuits.”

Founders - Constitutional ConventionIt doesn’t sound like Jefferson would endorse government-mandated vaccinations.

Sons of Liberty founder Samuel Adams declared, “The Legislative has no right to absolute, arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people.”

Mandatory vaccination is “absolute, arbitrary power,” something Adams would oppose.

Thus, it would seem our Founders would not approve of such an over-reach of government and, it is my opinion, they would deem such action unconstitutional.

However, Dershowitz was clever. He couched his comments in terms of a mandate by ‘the people.’

KN95 Covid-19 face maskHe further said, “That’s what a democracy is about. 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.”

Here he makes the case that if the ‘majority of the people’ decide this, we must do it, though I must point out to the professor that we are a Republic, not a Democracy.

But I digress.

How would that majority agreement be accomplished? How and why would Americans agree to throw away any of our rights?

FearPanic. Fear. Safety.

The mass media sent our nation (and the world) into absolute panic mode over a Covid-19 virus that appears to have substantially less killing power than its several predecessors, scaring millions of people in the process, setting the stage for Vacinnators to play on that fear to suppress the freedom and liberty of all Americans.

Keep in mind that over 400,000 people gathered to celebrate music at Woodstock during the middle of the Hong Kong Flu pandemic, in August 1969. That worldwide pandemic, which started in July 1968 and went through to early 1970, killed an estimated one to four million people, including between 30,000 and 100,000 Americans (depending upon whose numbers you look at) while it infected somewhere between 11% and 21% of the entire global population.

WoodstockI can honestly state that I have no recollection of mass hysteria over the Hong Kong Flu during that time. I had graduated high school in June 1969, and started college that Fall…life as usual. No masks. Businesses were not forced to close. Certainly there was no social distancing.

As Americans we must remember that our Founders fought for our Freedom, our Rights, our Liberty.

And how do we protect our hard-won Liberty?

Leave it to cousin Patrick Henry, who said, “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”

Flag - Benjamin Franklin - Patrick HenryAnd what about Benjamin Franklin, who is called the First American?

Dershowitz, and other like-minded Vaccinators, cry “safety, safety, safety!”

Franklin rebukes this beautifully, saying, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

And, that is all it could possibly be, ‘a little temporary safety.’

History holds that proof. Pandemics come and go. Some worse than others. No doubt there will be more.

Do not let the Vaccinators, those spreading fear via the mass media, scare you into believing that mandatory vaccines must be done for our ‘safety.’

I am sorry, but that is part of an agenda.

On the other hand, if they want to make it mandatory that everyone be educated on the wonders of keeping our immune system healthy and strong in order to avoid the possibility of contacting a viral disease, I’d probably be all for that one.

As long as I knew that someone, somewhere, was not profiting from that.

Over For Now.

Main Street One.

Show Down: The Supreme Court and the Affordable Care Act

The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments concerning the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.


The worst thing that could happen would be for the justices to rule in favor of forcing American citizens to purchase health care based on the interstate commerce portion of the Constitution, as is the case in the 2,700 page, one trillion dollar piece of legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

That commerce clause has been utilized by politicians in an ever-widening sphere to regulate virtually anything.

It does not take an expert in constitutional law to know, without doubt, that forcing citizens to purchase health care with interstate commerce as the vehicle to do so is not only just plain wrong, it is illegal.

If this health care law is not repealed, the end result is that Capitol Hill, those citizens who are bound by oath to serve America’s best interests, have, simply stated, stripped away another right of freedom from Main Street USA.

The freedom to make independent decisions.

Any person should question why, if this legislation is such a good universal solution to health care, members of Congress are exempt from taking part. That our esteemed officials have so elected to distance themselves from something that is supposed to be so very good for everybody makes one wonder why they would do such.

That they can do this, as well as mandate retirement ages for the private sector but not themselves, among other inequities, is just another reason there should be a 28th Amendment:

Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.

On another health care related note, it is interesting that White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer stated that a positive aspect of the bill is that insurance companies “have to spend more of your premiums on health care instead of advertising and bonuses,” yet Congress and the White House allow drug companies to saturate the media with myriad ads promoting drugs that can cause “suicidal thoughts or actions” and “sudden unexpected death.”

And, it is a certainty that politicians accept all manner of financial support for their campaigns from insurance companies, executives and employees.

Such is hypocrisy in politics.

Let us hope the Supreme Court is able to rise above politics in their decision regarding the atrocious Affordable Care Act.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

The Affordable Care Act & The Constitution

The stage is set for the Supreme Court to become involved, whether they wish to or not, in the decision of whether or not forcing citizens of Main Street USA to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional.

While there certainly is debate centered around other portions of the incredibly massive piece of porked-out legislation, the rulings of two Federal judges that Congress has overstepped its authority by relying upon the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution (while two others ruled the opposite) all but guarantees the highest court’s involvement.

Simply put, the Commerce Clause (Article I) grants Congress the power to “…regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”

Throughout the decades the Supreme Court has used that particular clause very very broadly, including rulings on Depression-era farm quotas as well as bans on racial discrimination in the 1960s.

This Main Streeter finds it extremely difficult to fathom exactly how racial discrimination fits into the Commerce Clause. Whether one is Democrat, Republican or Independent, how could it be that human beings are considered as commerce?

In reality, the court used this clause because a company that was discriminating earned a majority of it’s revenue through interstate commerce. That still seems a stretch when, in fact, the country was founded in the belief that all people are created equal. Consider that the 14th Amendement (1868) guarantees equal protection under the law and racial discrimination would quality as something which is not equal. It seems, therefore, that the 14th Amendment offers a quite superior legal standing to ban racial discrimination.

In an attempt to determine what may or may not have been included in the thoughts and intentions of our Founding Fathers regarding the Commerce Clause, the reference used was the American Dictionary of the English Language, by Noah Webster, 1828.

It was thought that perhaps by using a dictionary from that time period there could be some light shed on the issue at hand today (and perhaps even some of those earlier court decisions that do not quite seem to fit).

The definition of Commerce is: “In a general sense, an interchange or mutual change of goods, wares, productions, or property of any kind, between nations or individuals, either by barter, or by purchase and sale; trade; traffick.” It further defines inland commerce as: “…the trade of commodities between citizens of the same nation.”

Turning a page, the definition of Commodity is: “…anything that is useful, but particularly in commerce, including everything movable that is bought and sold, goods, wares, merchandise, produce of land and manufactures. Unless perhaps animals may be excepted, the word includes all the movables which are objects of commerce.”

Based upon the above definitions, which were used by those responsible for writing and implementing the Constitution it seems clear that mandating that a citizen of the United States purchase health insurance through the vehicle known as the Affordable Care Act is, indeed, unconstitutional.

It really is not even debatable.

That, coupled with the actual wording of the Article in question (“regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes”), indicates that Article I gives absolutely NO power to Congress to force citizens (i.e., individuals) to purchase anything.

Undoubtedly someone will be called upon, when all is said and done and attorneys for both sides have voiced their last convincing words, to write a decision. And that document will more than likely be scores and scores of pages, when, in fact, it boils down to just a couple.

And, as a last thought, allowing Capitol Hill to mandate what an individual must purchase opens the door for future edicts by those elected representatives who are supposed to be serving the interests of Americans, not dictating them.

Over For Now.

Main Street One