SINCE WHEN DO LAWYERS GIVE MEDICAL ADVICE?
NY State Bar Recommends NY make covid Vaccine Mandatory - https://www.bitchute.com/video/m2LCddkveyN8/
Below excerpted from: https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/11/09/vote-fraud-covid-vaccine-biden-plan/
Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz has made quite a media stir recently by claiming that the government can force us all to receive COVID-19 vaccines if one is developed. Specifically, he said "Let me put it very clearly: you have no constitutional right to endanger the public and spread the disease, even if you disagree. You have no right not to be vaccinated.…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."
Dershowitz justified that rather shocking conclusion as settled law citing a 1905 Supreme Court case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts. That seemed like an awfully Draconian decision, so I read it. And what do you know: it isn’t nearly as broad in scope as Dershowitz indicated.
The case involved federalism and the power of local governments authorized in a law passed by Massachusetts that allowed municipalities to require smallpox vaccinations of all residents during local outbreaks. The Cambridge Health Board issued such an order during a community epidemic. Jacobson, the defendant in the case had had this vaccination before and as a result of a severe reaction to it very nearly died of systemic complications and side effects. It was due to this event which almost cost him his life he then refused, was prosecuted, and ultimately, convicted of violating the order, but what Dershowitz fails to mention about the decision, which is extremely material, is the actual final outcome of the case. At the time the penalty for refusing this mandate was a ten dollar fine.
JACOBSEN WAS NOT ORDERED TO TAKE THE VACCINE. HE WAS ORDERED TO PAY A TEN DOLLAR FINE, WHICH HE DID.
So that was the result of his objection, but Dershowitz omits this information because without the proper context one might reasonably fill in the missing blanks here and conclude this case provides precedent for mandatory vaccinations which in turn leads one to believe he would lose if he brought suit on the unconstitutional nature of the mandate, a mandate that without such legal precedent would be AGGRAVATED ASSAULT.
But there is much more to this. Lets look at some specific details of the case. The defendant brought the case to the Supreme Court arguing that the Massachusetts law and Cambridge order violated the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that it did not. From the ruling:
"The Supreme Law of the Land [the Constitution]…should not invade the domain of local authority except when it is plainly necessary to do so in order to enforce that law."
Thus, the decision does not stand for the principle that the federal government—or even state authorities—have the power to force everyone to receive a vaccination because there is a health emergency. Rather, it found that the United States cannot impose a national legal standard on a locality unless mandated by the Constitution, which in this case, it wasn’t.
The Court then enunciated the legal standard necessary to justify the government assuming such sweeping power:
"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."
Now, let’s apply the Jacobson ruling to the current COVID-19 crisis.
First: The authority granted Cambridge was limited in scope and applied only within that city. In other words, the Cambridge order had zero impact on the residents of Cape Cod.
Second: Government cannot just pass any law it wants because there is a health emergency. So, here’s a question that must be answered in assessing Dershowitz’s claim of a broad power of the government in the current circumstance: Is the COVID-19 pandemic such a “great danger” that it would be “reasonable” to secure “the safety of the general public” for the government to force everyone in the country to be vaccinated?
It seems to me that the answer must be no.
Context matters. The Jacobson case dealt with smallpox, one of the deadliest diseases known to man, with a 30 percent mortality rate and scarring afflicting the majority of survivors. COVID-19 comes nowhere close to being that deadly. Those at material risk of death from COVID-19—still a lower risk than smallpox—are the elderly and people with serious co-morbidities. Children and healthy adults do not face a dire peril. Almost all recover from the illness and some don’t experience serious symptoms of any kind.
Third: Since we can identify the minority most at risk from COVID-19, is it reasonable to force everyone in the country to be vaccinated? Absolutely not. The government can deploy far less intrusive means to shield such people with limited quarantine orders and locking down nursing homes, as two examples we have seen thus far, but even these precautions, particularly the locking down of nursing homes which was done in an extremely draconian manner has resulted in so many elderly deaths due not so much from covid but from severe isolation and depression that it is arguable that the measures seem to have exacerbated the situation far more than such an outbreak ever would have.
Finally, the pandemic has had widely divergent impact throughout the country. Would it be reasonable to force people in Montana to all be vaccinated because New York and New Jersey were hit by a catastrophe? Surely, the answer has to be, no. Given that high-risk populations can be identified and isolated for their protection without materially impacting the freedom of the rest of society, I believe that state or federal laws requiring universal vaccination would be viewed by the courts as an unreasonable overreach of government power.
So in making this statement and playing 'historian' it appears that Dershowitz has chosen to use his reputation to assist our leaders in making a persuasively misleading argument to convince us to be inoculated should a vaccine be perfected. But in this particular circumstance and given the largely benign nature of this specific disease and its minimal impact on healthy populations means it can’t force us.
The government, Dershowitz’s opinion notwithstanding, certainly DOES NOT have “the power to literally take you to a doctor’s office and plunge a needle into your arm.”
On this shuffling trick of misstating the question, and setting up a man of straw to make a pompous demonstration of knocking him down... The proclamations of 'experts' like Alan Dershowitz must stand up to scrutiny. This statement he made provides a particularly egregious example of the sort of tactics we all need to catch and correct.
A historian stands in a fiduciary position towards his readers, and if he withholds from them important facts likely to influence their judgment, he is guilty of fraud. AUGUSTINE BIRRELL (1850- 1933), Obiter Dicta, 1884.
Below excerpted from: https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/11/09/vote-fraud-covid-vaccine-biden-plan/
- Here is another group of lawyers; the New York Bar Association. On November 7, as the New York Law Journal reports: “The New York State Bar Association on Saturday passed a resolution urging the state to consider making it mandatory for all New Yorkers to undergo COVID-19 vaccination when a vaccine becomes available, even if people object to it for ‘religious, philosophical or personal reasons’.”
- In case you think this resolution has anything to do with the law, think again. Yes, the Bar Association is criminally convinced the State has the Constitutional power to force a vaccine on the population, but their resolution is recommending the State should actually do it. That’s not law, that’s health policy, that’s medical policy, that’s “science.” That’s also Police State. What is a lawyers’ association doing recommending medical decisions?
- It’s lining up with Joe Biden and his forthcoming “national plan to conquer the pandemic.” It’s signaling, “We’re on board with you, Joe. Don’t worry about us. We’re for sale, we’re for hire.” It’s old-fashioned partisan politics and deal-making masquerading as some sort of legal brief. It’s a message to card-carrying lawyers everywhere: Mandatory vaccination should be your bias in all cases.
Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz has made quite a media stir recently by claiming that the government can force us all to receive COVID-19 vaccines if one is developed. Specifically, he said "Let me put it very clearly: you have no constitutional right to endanger the public and spread the disease, even if you disagree. You have no right not to be vaccinated.…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."
Dershowitz justified that rather shocking conclusion as settled law citing a 1905 Supreme Court case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts. That seemed like an awfully Draconian decision, so I read it. And what do you know: it isn’t nearly as broad in scope as Dershowitz indicated.
The case involved federalism and the power of local governments authorized in a law passed by Massachusetts that allowed municipalities to require smallpox vaccinations of all residents during local outbreaks. The Cambridge Health Board issued such an order during a community epidemic. Jacobson, the defendant in the case had had this vaccination before and as a result of a severe reaction to it very nearly died of systemic complications and side effects. It was due to this event which almost cost him his life he then refused, was prosecuted, and ultimately, convicted of violating the order, but what Dershowitz fails to mention about the decision, which is extremely material, is the actual final outcome of the case. At the time the penalty for refusing this mandate was a ten dollar fine.
JACOBSEN WAS NOT ORDERED TO TAKE THE VACCINE. HE WAS ORDERED TO PAY A TEN DOLLAR FINE, WHICH HE DID.
So that was the result of his objection, but Dershowitz omits this information because without the proper context one might reasonably fill in the missing blanks here and conclude this case provides precedent for mandatory vaccinations which in turn leads one to believe he would lose if he brought suit on the unconstitutional nature of the mandate, a mandate that without such legal precedent would be AGGRAVATED ASSAULT.
But there is much more to this. Lets look at some specific details of the case. The defendant brought the case to the Supreme Court arguing that the Massachusetts law and Cambridge order violated the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that it did not. From the ruling:
"The Supreme Law of the Land [the Constitution]…should not invade the domain of local authority except when it is plainly necessary to do so in order to enforce that law."
Thus, the decision does not stand for the principle that the federal government—or even state authorities—have the power to force everyone to receive a vaccination because there is a health emergency. Rather, it found that the United States cannot impose a national legal standard on a locality unless mandated by the Constitution, which in this case, it wasn’t.
The Court then enunciated the legal standard necessary to justify the government assuming such sweeping power:
"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."
Now, let’s apply the Jacobson ruling to the current COVID-19 crisis.
First: The authority granted Cambridge was limited in scope and applied only within that city. In other words, the Cambridge order had zero impact on the residents of Cape Cod.
Second: Government cannot just pass any law it wants because there is a health emergency. So, here’s a question that must be answered in assessing Dershowitz’s claim of a broad power of the government in the current circumstance: Is the COVID-19 pandemic such a “great danger” that it would be “reasonable” to secure “the safety of the general public” for the government to force everyone in the country to be vaccinated?
It seems to me that the answer must be no.
Context matters. The Jacobson case dealt with smallpox, one of the deadliest diseases known to man, with a 30 percent mortality rate and scarring afflicting the majority of survivors. COVID-19 comes nowhere close to being that deadly. Those at material risk of death from COVID-19—still a lower risk than smallpox—are the elderly and people with serious co-morbidities. Children and healthy adults do not face a dire peril. Almost all recover from the illness and some don’t experience serious symptoms of any kind.
Third: Since we can identify the minority most at risk from COVID-19, is it reasonable to force everyone in the country to be vaccinated? Absolutely not. The government can deploy far less intrusive means to shield such people with limited quarantine orders and locking down nursing homes, as two examples we have seen thus far, but even these precautions, particularly the locking down of nursing homes which was done in an extremely draconian manner has resulted in so many elderly deaths due not so much from covid but from severe isolation and depression that it is arguable that the measures seem to have exacerbated the situation far more than such an outbreak ever would have.
Finally, the pandemic has had widely divergent impact throughout the country. Would it be reasonable to force people in Montana to all be vaccinated because New York and New Jersey were hit by a catastrophe? Surely, the answer has to be, no. Given that high-risk populations can be identified and isolated for their protection without materially impacting the freedom of the rest of society, I believe that state or federal laws requiring universal vaccination would be viewed by the courts as an unreasonable overreach of government power.
So in making this statement and playing 'historian' it appears that Dershowitz has chosen to use his reputation to assist our leaders in making a persuasively misleading argument to convince us to be inoculated should a vaccine be perfected. But in this particular circumstance and given the largely benign nature of this specific disease and its minimal impact on healthy populations means it can’t force us.
The government, Dershowitz’s opinion notwithstanding, certainly DOES NOT have “the power to literally take you to a doctor’s office and plunge a needle into your arm.”
On this shuffling trick of misstating the question, and setting up a man of straw to make a pompous demonstration of knocking him down... The proclamations of 'experts' like Alan Dershowitz must stand up to scrutiny. This statement he made provides a particularly egregious example of the sort of tactics we all need to catch and correct.
A historian stands in a fiduciary position towards his readers, and if he withholds from them important facts likely to influence their judgment, he is guilty of fraud. AUGUSTINE BIRRELL (1850- 1933), Obiter Dicta, 1884.
Somebody please tell Alan...
YOU'RE BUSTED!
YOU'RE BUSTED!
RSS Feed