Vaccine Passports would be unconstitutional, immoral, and unscientific

Many times a day we have heard liberal politicians and politically influenced medical professionals float the idea of requiring that individuals obtain a Coronavirus vaccine before they can participate in normal life again.  Requiring a vaccine passport before someone can eat at a restaurant, fly on an airplane, travel, or engage in any type if activity is fascist in the extreme.  The idea goes against every single ideal the United States of America was founded on.

Any type of vaccine passport imposed by any level or agency of the Federal Government would violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment because the right of conscience is integral to that clause of the First Amendment.  

A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom by Thomas Jefferson was the foundation for the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. As you can see, the right of conscience is a major component of Jefferson’s bill.

We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any relig[i]ous Worship place or Ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

Several States proposed amendments to the Constitution thet would be incorporated into the Bill of Rights.  From the text of this amendment proposed at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, the right of conscience was at the very heart of  what became the First Amendment.

Twentieth, That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by Law in preference to others.

Here is the text of the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance.

This next quote is from transcript of the House of Representatives where they debated the Amendments to the Constitution that would become the Bill of Rights. In this Quote James Madison explains that the right of conscience was onr of the prime motivations for the First Amendment.

Mr. Madison said, he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience. Whether the words are necessary or not, he did not mean to say, but they had been required by some of the State Conventions, who seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the Constitution, which gave power to Congress to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the Constitution, and the laws made under it, enabled them to make laws of such a nature as might infringe the rights of conscience and establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit.

The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution does not restrain the States in any way.  The Constitutions of all the individual States include a Bill of Rights to protect the rights of the people of that State.  Here are the two clauses of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights that mimic the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the federal Constitution.  Vaccine passport laws would violate those clauses because they violate the right of conscience of every individual.

Article II.  It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.

Article XVIII.  Section 1. No law shall be passed prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Vaccine Passport laws would also violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment which states:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

The freedom to move as you wish, leave your house whenever you want, eat at a restaurant whenever you want, and so much more is included in the word liberty.  The only way the federal government can deprive an individual of their liberty is if that individual is found guilty in a court of law by a jury.   Vaccine passports are an obscene violation of that clause.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution prohibits the States from depriving the inhabitants of the States of their liberty unless individuals are tried in a court of law and found guilty by a jury.  Vaccine passports would violate that clause of the Constitution.  State Constitutions also include clauses that protect the liberty of every individual inhabiting that State.  They would be violated by vaccine passports.

I  have yet to see any valid scientific rational for vaccine passports.  None at all.   There is nothing preventing individuals from getting vaccinated if they wish to except restrictions based on age made by certain governors.  An unvaccinated individual is absolutely no danger to a vaccinated individual.  If someone wants to take the risk of eating in restaurant or living their life in any way without getting vaccinated it their choice and their right as an individual living in a free country.

5 thoughts on “Vaccine Passports would be unconstitutional, immoral, and unscientific

  1. Not to mention persons who have acquired immunity by having been infected by the live virus and recovering from the disease. We are supposed to believe that immunity does not accrue in this manner by the simple statement of, “We do not know how long such immunity lasts.” What hogwash. How long does immunity from chicken pox last after one recovers from the disease? Lifetime. How many people have been ill with “Covid” and have been ill with “Covid” a second time?

    1. They are actually telling people who have already had Covid and have antibodies not to get the vaccine. They have also found that no study was done with women only with men as women, pregnant or not, have had issues with bleeding. Something in the vaccine won’t let the uterus wall lining build up, it makes it shed dangerously. The result is that women end up bleeding for two weeks before their cycle and during their cycle. That is very dangerous. The worse part is that this can happen to people who have not had the vaccine because you end up exhaling the vaccine and it effects both those who have had it [the vaccine].

  2. My doctor insists I get the vaccine. I’m in the right age group. I think there are too many unanswered questions about it. I told her I would wait to see about long term side effects, a year out. She said that wasn’t fair to the people I might unknowingly infect. So many possible responses. I took a deep breath and simply said, ” I’ll consider that. ” What’s bad about this is she already knows I am one to do my own research, and make decisions accordingly.

    I came home and told the wife I may have to find a new doctor. Even as a doctor it isn’t her job to harass me.

  3. Unconstitutional. Immoral. As if either of things has EVER stopped U.S. government before?
    Actually, fairly sure those those two words are in title of Biden administration theme song?
    They care NONE about us, the citizens aka “peasants.”
    This is and HAS ALWAYS BEEN about the plan.
    Fear, the #1 greatest weapon for control.
    Fear makes intelligent thought difficult if not impossible.
    Fear driven behavior is not conscious behavior.
    Fear makes passing impossible laws possible.
    Fear turns enemies into warriors who will defend your cause.
    Fear makes people beg to be saved.
    Fear makes people beg for their enslavement.
    Say hello to world governance via dictatorship.
    Say bye bye to government for the people.
    THAT … is history.

  4. First of all the covid injection does not meet the legal definition of a vaccine so it is NOT a vaccine. It doesn’t inject a live or dead pathogen, it does not prevent infection of a pathogen nor does it prevent transmission of a pathogen, this is according to the CDC and the CEO’s of the pharmaceutical companies that have created these injections. The goal they claim was to reduce symptoms which is what they are referring to when they say efficacy. I think most people think that word means effective. They refer to clinical disease and I think people think that means covid but clinical disease is a term referring to symptoms, not the pathogen. The average person doesn’t seem to understand the terminology and so they are being easily misled. Big Pharma are claiming it is a vaccine to dupe people into thinking the pharmaceutical industry has liability protection that doesn’t really cover this treatment. It actually meets the legal definition of a medical device. It is a genetic technology treatment. As such it serves no purpose in combatting so called Covid. So logically speaking none of this argument holds water.

    Dr Derek Knauss has filed a lawsuit against the CDC for fraud based on the fact that he tested 1500 positive Covid tests and not a single one contained covid, all the samples contained influenza A and B. These people had influenza. When he contacted CDC for a Covid sample they could not produce one. He believes because there isn’t one. He sent the samples off to 7 Universities who also tested the samples all unanimously came back positive for influenza A and B. They used Kochs Postulates and observation under a SEM (scanning electron microscope) far more accurate testing method than PCR which is NOT designed for viral testing.

    So why are people being forced to take an injection that only lessens flu symptoms and offers no protection for a corona virus that Dr Knauss claims has been proven to be a fraud (is actually influenza) and if they don’t their freedoms will be taken away? You can’t mandate a vaccine if there are other treatments that sucessfully treat the illness and there are, hydroxychloquine and zinc, ivermectin, budesonine, intravenous C. Also you cannot experiment on the public without their informed consent it is a violation of Nuremberg Code section 1,3,5 and 6. This treatment is in the experimental phase, authorized but not approved till Jan 27, 2023, which is when the experimental trial will be complete. This is clearly stated on CDC website.

Leave a Reply