A Constitutional Defense Against A COVID-19 Mandatory Vaccine

 

With several governors in America (and perhaps some in the federal government) discussing and/or threatening a mandatory vaccination of all citizens for COVID-19, know that there is a legal defense against it. I am not talking about the Nuremberg Code, although the baisis for that is the same as what is presented here.

American citizens have the protection of the Constitution which points out several natural human rights - rights that come from God, or at least nature. These rights are immutable. As so aptly stated in the Declaration of Independence, we have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Every citizen has an immutable right to choose their own fate. SCOTUS has struck down vagrancy laws for that reason - no person is REQUIRED to live by the standard set by another. In other words, we DO have the right to choose what we will do with our own lives. It is the "pursuit of happiness".

By the same token, we each have a right to choose what risk(s) we will or will not accept. If a person chooses to be a soldier or law enforcement officer and risks his or her life, he/she has the right to make that choice. Evel Knievel risked his life all the time. He had that right.

The same is true of a vaccine - we have the right to choose the risk of getting the vaccine (and there are several), or the risk involved in not getting it. And while there are those that will use the argument that a mandated vaccine is for the public good, to protect one another, that argument is bogus simply because the unvaccinated do not place the vaccinated at risk. The only person(s) an unvaccinated person places at risk are other persons who also made that same choice, knowing the risk and accepting that risk which they have a right to do under common law - their personal sovereignty. If I am not vaccinated, I am fully aware that I can become infected by another unvaccinated person that may be infected, and I chose to accept that risk.

Anyone unwilling to accept the risk of COVID-19, for example, would be free to get a vaccine when available. Those of us who choose not to are no threat to those who are vaccinated, so the "public good" argument does not fly.

Of course, in 1905 SCOTUS ruled that a vaccine could be made mandatory, but there are issues with that ruling. The first issue, of course, is the Constitution and our God-given rights. And while the court determined the "public safety" allowed them to over-rule the Constitution, that, itself was unConstitutional, primarily for the reason given above - the "public safety" issue is bogus in the case of vaccines, because an unvaccinated person poses no threat to anyone except others who knowingly accepted the same risks.

But there are other issues with the 1905 ruling:

• In 1905 there was a lot that was not known about vaccines. Today we know they can kill people. Bill gates has stated it will likely kill at least 700,000. We also  know they affect our immune system. And in the case of an RNA/DNA vaccine (which is the one being tested), it could change the entire human genome, and maybe not for the better
• In 1905, there were no studies that linked vaccinations to other possible medical conditions. As new studies come to light, it appears vaccines can do great harm to a person's health
• A COVID-19 vaccine is untested as far as long-term side effects, because the vaccine was rushed. NO ONE knows what the ultimate effect would be, or if it is truly "safe"
• In 1905, "tracking chips" and nanotechnology did not exist. If included in a vaccine, no matter the reason, a person has every right to reject it. And since there currently is no way to tell if it is or is not included, individuals have the right to reject any and all vaccines in the future.
• The 1905 decision also stated that a vaccine could only be mandated if there were no alternative therapies. Regardless of what many with ulterior motives claim, there are alternatives, not the least of which is Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine with Z-pak, zinc, and vitamin C & D3. There is also Remdevisir and possibly infusion of antibodies (plasma)

None of this, however, will make much difference if the State decides to violate our rights against our will. They do it all the time. Wearing or not wearing seat belts and helmets is a personal choice as to the level of risk we will take, and Constitutionally, we should be the ones making those choices for ourselves. If I get in a motorcycle accident while not wearing a helmet, only my life is at risk, and as long as I am properly insured, any cost involved is covered, which protects taxpayers from picking up the tab. Yet, many states force us to wear them. Thankfully, more and more states have deemed helmet laws unconstitutional for adults. They should do the same with seat belts.

Perhaps the most important defense (as of this writing is obvious, but not yet proved) is that the "Covid vaccines" contain graphene oxide, the greatest conductor on the planet, used in AI. It has been proved that certain frequencies can animate it and get it to build structures. And while it cannot breach the blood brain barrier on its own, it can enter the brain if the barrier is punctured by, say, a LONG swap shoved deep into the nasal cavity. Now consider that the required frequency is 5G. It is no longer a stretch to assume that graphene oxide in the brain can build the neural link that Elon Musk speaks of which would connect people to "the internet of things". And once the person is connected directly to the internet, everything they think, do and say, every place they go, everyone they speak with, all of their medical history, their "digital ID complete with financial data and even their vital signs can be controlled by whoever runs the 5G and the servers. The person can, just like a computer or smart phone, can simply be shut off as desired.

In the event any government entity decides to mandate a vaccine, it will most assuredly end up at the Supreme Court, and hopefully the court will favor the Constitution this time. But if it does not, there is still an alternative - we can once again fight for our human rights as we did in 1776...

/