Posted by Centipede Nation Staff on May 17, 2020 3:52 pm

Alan Dershowitz Says Government Has Right To Enforce Mandatory Vaccinations

“You have no right not to be vaccinated”, “If you refuse, the Government has the right to plunge a needle into your arm.” These are the words of Alan Dershowitz. As a constitutional scholar, he’s pointing out how precedent exists for forced medical action to eliminate the risk of mass contagion and how the supreme court has historically ruled on this. But we’ll show you why he’s wrong.

During a live broadcast interview with Crowd Source The Truth’s, Jason Goodman, Alan Dershowitz (Epstein’s lawyer) claimed the government has the consitutional authority to force vaccinate the population, and there’s nothing you can do about it. In fact, he himself has stated that he hopes the government mandates the latest vaccine and that he’ll be the first in line to receive it. He also stated that he’ll want to be in front of the Supreme Court to argue for its legitimacy.

On the other end, Dershowitz also seems to be a little confused as he states that he and his family would get vaccinated only if it’s safe. The contradiction seems to fly right over his head as this is the exact point vaccine-skeptics also share. For some reason, he thinks these people are conspiracy theorists and should be forced to stay in their homes if they refuse the vaccine.

He later went on to state that the U.S. is a Democracy under a system of mob rule by implying that if the majority of the population agree and support public health measures that include mandatory vaccinations, then you have to be vaccinated. We will not get deep into any civic discussons here because most of our readers understand we are a Republic and not a Democracy. So delving into this deeper is moot.

Dershowitz also brought up Typhoid Mary who spent 26 years in forced isolation. She was an asymptomatic carrier of the contagious bacteria that caused typhoid fever. Immune to the disease herself, she was presumed to have infected 51 people, which 3 resulted in death. Although there were hundreds if not thousands of asymptomatic carriers in walking around New York freely, Typhoid Mary was the only one who lived in exile due the public opinion created by propaganda of the time.

Further more, Dershowitz brings up Jacobson v Massachusetts as an example of a ruling that exists justifying forced vaccinations. For reference, here’s a section called “Applying Modern Constitutional Law” from PubMed that expands on that:

Given the changes in constitutional law, public health, and government regulation, what kinds of public health laws that address contagious diseases might be constitutionally permissible today? A law that authorizes mandatory vaccination during an epidemic of a lethal disease, with refusal punishable by a monetary penalty, like the one at issue in Jacobson, would undoubtedly be found constitutional under the low constitutional test of “rationality review.” However, the vaccine would have to be approved by the FDA as safe and effective, and the law would have to require exceptions for those who have contraindications to the vaccine. A law that authorizes mandatory vaccination to prevent dangerous contagious diseases in the absence of an epidemic, such as the school immunization requirement summarily upheld in 1922, also would probably be upheld as long as (1) the disease still exists in the population where it can spread and cause serious injury to those infected, and (2) a safe and effective vaccine could prevent transmission to others.

Although the above exerpt seems to agree with Dershowitz in some way, the author goes on to give an example of cases showing the important differences betwen laws intended to prevent a person from harming others, and laws intended to protect the indidividual, which are unjustified violations of liberty.

Likewise, a state statute that actually forced people to be vaccinated over their refusal, such as Florida’s new “public health emergency” law, would probably be an unconstitutional violation of the right to refuse treatment. In the case of Nancy Cruzan, the Court assumed, without having to decide, that competent adults have a constitutionally protected right to refuse any medical treatment, including artificially delivered care such as nutrition and hydration. Even the state’s legitimate interest in protecting life cannot outweigh a competent adult’s decision to refuse medical treatment. Today, a general interest in the public’s health or welfare could not justify sterilizing Carrie Buck against her will. Since Griswold v Connecticut, the Court has repeatedly struck down state laws that interfere with personal reproductive decisions. All competent adults have the right to refuse surgical sterilization. The Court also said that people who cannot make decisions for themselves because they are legally incompetent are entitled to have their wishes respected and carried out. If their personal wishes are unknown, they must be treated in accordance with their own best interests, not the interests of the state.

Further down, they break down the unconstitutionality of forced vaccinations:

Even in an emergency, when there is a rapidly spreading contagious disease and an effective vaccine, the state is not permitted to forcibly vaccinate or medicate anyone. The constitutional alternative is to segregate infected and exposed people separately to prevent them from transmitting the disease to others. Here again, modern constitutional law demands a high level of justification. The Supreme Court has long recognized that “involuntary confinement of an individual for any reason, is a deprivation of liberty which the State cannot accomplish without due process of law,” and some justices have called freedom from such confinement fundamental in nature. While it has not decided a case that involved isolation or quarantine for disease, it has held that civil commitment for mental illness is unconstitutional unless a judge determines the person is dangerous by reason of a mental illness.

Last but no least, Dershowitz says you wont be able to refuse vaccines based off of legislation. But he fails to realize that any legislation would also be based on the determination of medical professionals. Disregarding the fact that there are many medical professionals that disagree with the efficacy of certain vaccinations, then how can Dershowitz be so confident as to argue for its legitamacy, if he himself fails to point out the basis for it comes from medical professionals? Did he just fall into a mental loop of contradictions?

Stay Up To Date With More News Like This:


Help Centipede Nation Stay Online

Stories like these are made possible by contributions from readers like you. If everyone who enjoys our website helps fund it, we can keep our platform alive and expand our coverage further.