Jenna Ellis Declares Dershowitz Is Wrong On “Forced” Vaccinations

Alan Dershowitz was wrong on Tucker and his prior interviews about “forced” vaccinations. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a monetary fine for refusal, but it didn’t order the Plaintiff to be injected.

A COVID-19 vaccine penalty would still require the state to show public safety justifies requirement and whether that is enforceable by *reasonable* regulations.

Claiming the state can round up people and “plunge a needle into their arm” is grossly overdramatic and misstating Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), a case that dealt with an ordinance requiring a smallpox vaccination due to the epidemic.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court held the regulation was constitutional because the worst thing that could happen is a measly fine. They said, “If a person should deem it important that vaccination should not be performed in his case, and the authorities should think otherwise, it is not in their power to vaccinate him by force, and the worst that could happen to him under the statute would be the payment of $5.”

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed and upheld the monetary fine, 7-2.

It also noted that the vaccination law applied temporarily, “only when, in the opinion of the Board of Health, that was necessary for the public health or the public safety.”

The High Court also cautioned:

“The police power of a State, whether exercised by the legislature, or by a local body acting under its authority, may be exerted in such circumstances or by regulations so arbitrary and oppressive in particular cases as to justify the interference of the courts to prevent wrong and oppression.”

To be clear, President Trump has never suggested mandatory vaccinations. If *states* were to try to require it, it is not a foregone conclusion ANY regulation would be constitutional.

Dershowitz is getting way ahead of himself to argue a state mandating a COVID-19 vaccine would be upheld unanimously. There are still available arguments, not to mention an American public that would never stand for it.

But no state should even try. It should be a voluntary, personal choice.

I shared this and a lot more on my podcast with David J Harris Jr. Here is the link for Spotify and iTunes:

Jenna Ellis is a constitutional law attorney and the Senior Legal Adviser to the Trump 2020 campaign. She is an attorney to President Trump, Senior Fellow at the Falkirk Center, and author of “The Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution.”

1 COMMENT

  1. I am truly curious as to why no one seems to bring the issue of treaty into a discussion of the question of mandatory anything, vaccines, masks, even the debatable PCR testing procedure. Dershowitz is a well reputed constitutional lawyer who doesn’t seem to have ever read Article 6:

    This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;

    Now consider the 1966 UN Treaty below:

    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
    Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966
    entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49
    Article 7
    No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

    Notwithstanding the fact that Jacobson v. Massachusetts was a case about a five-dollar fine, it bears consideration that the UN Treaty did not exist in 1905. So, the magic words are “medical or scientific experimentation”.

    Vaccines are not double-blind placebo tested. Consider the words of Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, M.D., Chief Scientist, WHO, Pediatrician, at the December 3rd, 2019, Vaccine Safety Summit in Geneva Switzerland:

    “I think we cannot overemphasize the fact that we really don’t have very good safety monitoring systems in many countries, and this adds to the miscommunication and the misapprehensions because we’re not able to give clear-cut answers when people ask questions about the deaths that have occurred due to a particular vaccine, and this always gets blown up in the media. One should be able to give a very factual account of what exactly has happened and what the cause of deaths are but in most cases, there is some obfuscation at that level, and therefore, there is less and less trust then in the system.”

    To date, the United States Government has NEVER ONCE subjected any vaccines to the required testing and reporting procedures required under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.

    Additionally, we know that masks are not only an ineffective prevention measure, but we also know they actually obstruct oxygen flow to such degree one is more exposed by re-breathing his own possibly infecting air. See https://www.technocracy.news/blaylock-face-masks-pose-serious-risks-to-the-healthy/

    Finally, there is the issue of the PCR testing for COVID. Polymerase chain reaction tests the cell/RNA production of exosomes, which is a response to any number of toxic insults that can attack the body – including basic emotional stress. THE TEST DOES NOT TEST FOR COVID 19.

    The point is simple. A massive number of folks are surrendering their critical thinking to a series of erroneous opinions based on very dubious EXPERIMENTAL models that are not even supported by traditional control methods to begin with. Which brings me back to the UN Treaty…

    Article 7
    No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

    WHY IS NO ONE DISCUSSING THIS IF SO MANY ARE SO CONCERNED ABOUT DRACONIAN STATE ACTION? That Dershowitz opined in error in the face of this is not quite as surprising as the oversight on the part of Jenna Ellis to seize on the treaty as an unassailable rebuttal.

    I would be curious to hear her response to your follow up on this issue of treaty supremacy because I already know how the Supreme Court would rule because they already have upheld treaty supremacy again and again.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here