Alan Dershowitz Claims Americans Have No Constitutional Rights To Refuse To Be Vaccinated - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15094872
quetzalcoatl wrote:There's been a mammoth amount of historical revisionism in the air when it comes to public health and state power. A couple of generations ago it was standard practice to isolate TB patients long-term in institutions. From bitter experience public health authorities knew that TB patients, unless directly monitored, would not finish their course of medication - and eventually become infectious again.

The Constitution says squat about the rights of individuals. It only specifies what Congress may not do (and by later amendment, state legislatures).

The Bill of Rights says a great deal about the rights of individuals, which we can thank the Anti-Federalists’ opposition during the ratification debates for. But yes, the Federalists considered the way the Constitution only granted specific powers to Congress to be sufficient protection of individual rights, and a Bill of Rights to actually be dangerous. We can be grateful they were overridden.

But in this case, the Federalists’ point stands—I know of no clause in the Constitution that grants the federal government the power to force people to be vaccinated. For states—holding the police power—it would depend on what specific limitations their state constitutions place on their governments.
#15095006
maz wrote:LOL the vaccine manufacturers and infectious disease experts admit that they don't even understand the coronavirus yet. How can they come out with a vaccine when they don't even know if the virus will burn out before their hypothetical vaccine is ready?


When exactly do you think the vaccine will be ready?

These deranged kooks want to inject people with kind of undisclosed nanoparticles. They want to “play Legos with proteins,” as King put it.


That looks awesome, good job scientists. Looks like it's still years away, and you got scared because someone explained it in a way so simple that even the president could understand it lmfao.

They're creating artificial viral casings. Oooh, scary.

Regarding polio, they don't even use the same kind of vaccine now as they did back then. Why are you bringing up polio? Do you think that the same people who are working on polio vaccine are working on the coronavirus vaccine?


Would you accept a Covid-19 vaccine that was created by gestating the virus in monkey organs?

As you ponder that, go read a constitutional lawyer's response to how Dershowitz is wrong.


Nah that sounds boring and gay, I consider your worldview to be stupid and invalid so I'm putting zero effort into addressing your flimsy points.
#15095048
Doug64 wrote:The Bill of Rights says a great deal about the rights of individuals, which we can thank the Anti-Federalists’ opposition during the ratification debates for. But yes, the Federalists considered the way the Constitution only granted specific powers to Congress to be sufficient protection of individual rights, and a Bill of Rights to actually be dangerous. We can be grateful they were overridden.

But in this case, the Federalists’ point stands—I know of no clause in the Constitution that grants the federal government the power to force people to be vaccinated. For states—holding the police power—it would depend on what specific limitations their state constitutions place on their governments.

I was about to say "Praise the Lord" but then some people on here would get upset and call me a fake Christian.
And if I say "Thank God I feel the Spirit moving" then I bet they would call me a racist. Does that make sense?
#15095290
Doug64 wrote:But in this case, the Federalists’ point stands—I know of no clause in the Constitution that grants the federal government the power to force people to be vaccinated. For states—holding the police power—it would depend on what specific limitations their state constitutions place on their governments.


As the history of the US Presidency has demonstrated, the real limits of executive power are quite flexible. Trump is notable for extending this even further. He frequently argues that Congress/Courts cannot exercise any restraint at all on his power. In a practical sense, this assertion is obviously true. If an executive decides he has a certain power, and no one acts effectively to stop him, then the power becomes real - whatever the Constitution may say. Once such a further power is arrogated, it becomes nearly impossible to call it back. (Note I'm not arguing that Trump would try to use federal power to force vaccination. I don't believe he would consider it in his personal interest.)

Unenforced legal strictures, like copyrights, simply fade away. For example, the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution is now effectively defunct. There's nothing standing in the way of any future President running the federal establishment as his own personal money-making operation. I get a chuckle over the vicuna coat scandal of the Eisenhower administration - that kind of petty corruption wouldn't raise an eyebrow today.

I'm not a big fan of Trump, but I have to give him credit for utterly kicking aside all the high-school civics-class verities. Trump's biggest drawback is that he's too lazy & unmotivated to be a dictator. When a really determined authoritarian finally comes along, he won't have any trouble rolling over this moribund republic.
Last edited by quetzalcoatl on 30 May 2020 02:44, edited 1 time in total.
#15095310
wat0n wrote:I'll be surprised if that authoritarian is able to coordinate the State National Guards to do that.

I actually think Trump shows the limits of the Federal government's authority as well. He couldn't even force states to reopen for Easter like he said he would a few weeks ago after all.


"Reopen" is so vague, it's pretty damn hard to enforce.

If I were a dedicated authoritarian and President, here's what I'd do. I'd use some reasonable pretext to declare a state of national emergency. Coronavirus would have been perfect had Trump the necessary discipline. Great Depression II will be raising its ugly head real soon and it would be perfect for Biden or Trump, as the case may be. I'd use emergency powers to activate the Selective Service System, and draft all municipal and state police to place them under my command as CINC. I'd make all police chiefs junior officers and threaten them with military discipline. For sure, I'd throw any resisters into the brig if they disobeyed orders.

I'd identify my chief opposition in the press and have some very frank meetings with CEO's of their parent companies. Mainstream press is already used to toeing the company line - all I'd have to do is use sufficient intimidation to bring the parent companies under my control.

Of course, I'd need a Bill Barr type as AG to rule my actions legal and constitutional. I'd also need him to to selectively prosecute any political enemies. It's important to ruin them and make sure they are left penniless, to serve as an example. An authoritarian leader must be able to use fear to keep party leaders, media, the judiciary, military, and police in line.

You can do anything, if you are careful and diligent. It has to be a step at a time, and each step has to be normalized by a compliant press and political establishment. We've been heading this direction a long time - all it takes is a sufficiently determined, ruthless, and intelligent person to be at the right place at the right time.
#15095363
wat0n wrote:What would this guy do if Governors ordered their National Guardsmen to disobey a manifestly unconstitutional order and they sided with their home States?

PS: And how would this President be able to skip the Posse Comitatus Act?


He'd certainly require a disciplined corps of troops he could send to arrest any defiant state leaders. My question is whether they would actually resist, if they knew a heavy penalty could be incurred (loss of employment, imprisonment). Americans talk a big talk, but in action they are pretty subservient to authority.

The President could easily tie up any legal issues (like Posse Comitatus) in court indefinitely.

Confession: I'm trolling here, but only a little bit. Western governments are all heading, at different speeds, towards fairly hard-core authoritarianism.
#15095366
quetzalcoatl wrote:He'd certainly require a disciplined corps of troops he could send to arrest any defiant state leaders. My question is whether they would actually resist, if they knew a heavy penalty could be incurred (loss of employment, imprisonment). Americans talk a big talk, but in action they are pretty subservient to authority.

The President could easily tie up any legal issues (like Posse Comitatus) in court indefinitely.


I think that a concrete threat against their position would give them a spine. I don't think Americans are as spineless as you believe.

I also find it hard to see how long can you hold that act for. It's quite explicit about the Federal Government's authority in that regard.

quetzalcoatl wrote:Confession: I'm trolling here, but only a little bit. Western governments are all heading, at different speeds, towards fairly hard-core authoritarianism.


I don't think hardcore authoritarianism is the exact term. But I do agree that governments across the board will become more authoritarian, particularly in terms of surveiling the population.
#15095370
wat0n wrote: I don't think Americans are as spineless as you believe.


How many years did Eugene Debs rot in prison for opposing World War I?
#15095707
quetzalcoatl wrote:As the history of the US Presidency has demonstrated, the real limits of executive power are quite flexible. Trump is notable for extending this even further. He frequently argues that Congress/Courts cannot exercise any restraint at all on his power. In a practical sense, this assertion is obviously true. If an executive decides he has a certain power, and no one acts effectively to stop him, then the power becomes real - whatever the Constitution may say. Once such a further power is arrogated, it becomes nearly impossible to call it back. (Note I'm not arguing that Trump would try to use federal power to force vaccination. I don't believe he would consider it in his personal interest.)

In the US Constitution there is a major difference between how the executive and legislative powers are referred to. Article I, on Congress, opens with "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States ..." (emphasis added), while Article II, on the presidency, opens with "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Basically, While the Constitution lays out in precise terms what Congress is authorized to do, it grants the President the amorphous "executive Power" which the Constitution modifies and limits in some respects but doesn't define. The Heritage Guide to the Constitution's opening paragraph of the essay on the Executive Vesting Clause states:

    The Executive Vesting Clause (or “Vesting Clause”) grants the president the executive power traditionally associated with chief executives, subject to the many clarifications and constraints listed elsewhere in Article II. The Vesting Clause is best read as granting authority to direct and remove executive officers, a power to control the execution of federal law, and an interstitial power over foreign affairs.

This would mean that, generally speaking, when it comes to domestic affairs if Congress doesn't have the power to legislate then the president doesn't have the power to enforce. Even when Congress does have the power to legislate, if it chooses not to the president can't act unilaterally. But yes, the enforcement of these limitations depends on Congress and the states stepping up when the president gets out of line. A perfect example was how when Trump considered imposing a quarantine around New York, New Jersey, and at least parts of Connecticut, governors promptly stated that if he did they'd sue. Likewise the pushback from governors when he stated that he had the power to unilaterally open (and implicitly to unilaterally close) the state economies. Both times he backed down.

@Atlantis The figures say it all. Germany 109 […]

End of maduro - hopefully.

https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/128182436[…]

This interview with Joseph Massad is really great […]

Or Obama 2.0. But the different managers of neoli[…]