BETTLE: Here’s Why Requiring Vax Passports is Unconstitutional and Illegal

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on email
Share on linkedin
Share on telegram

It is an insane assertion to believe it is proper for the government to coerce people into injecting themselves with a foreign substance.

To submit to vaccine passport mandates is even worse; vax passports are unconstitutional, as I argued below:

This is a hill I’ll proudly die on. For example, the right to education does not get taken away in the absence of vaccinations. The ability to go to a public school does.

This thinking believes rights come from government. It portrays a notion that it is somehow immoral to believe our rights come from God. It gets the relationship of people to their government backwards. 

Good thing, under the Constitution, current laws, and case precedent, it should be unconstitutional and illegal, too. We should fight to keep it this way. 

The right to travel is a foundational doctrine under the Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause. Experts recently in media and some politicians in the halls of Congress have started to ponder the question of whether it will soon be a requirement of U.S. citizens to have vaccine passports in order to travel. It is a popular public debate. But we already have the answers. 

U.S. citizens have the right to freely travel between states. “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125 (1958). 

The Fifth Amendment’s federal due process rights, for over a century, have been applied to the rights of U.S. citizens against the infringement of State governments through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process clause, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”  Furthermore, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Under the Equal Protection clause, no State shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” We fought all whole war over slavery for this Amendment. 

Due process is defined as the fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen’s entitlement. For all the talk we hear from the left, this seems to be the one entitlement they want to eliminate, not expand. In their eyes, this is the one entitlement which is a roadblock to their utopia. Ronald Reagan once stated there is nothing more permanent than a government entitlement. Time has proven him correct. Because due process is not a government entitlement, it is an entitlement from Almighty God. Which, may be a reason some on the left are so eager to diminish it because secular leftism’s religion is government. 

Under the Constitution, the federal government, does not have the power to regulate or enact Police Powers. Police Powers allow a government to exercise reasonable control over persons and property within its jurisdiction. Moreover, the General Welfare clause in our Constitution is about spending, not the general welfare of the populace. The feds do not have power over your person and are barred from doing “unreasonable searches and seizures.” I would argue it is an unreasonable seizure of a person’s bodily rights to force a foreign substance in.

We can already predict Congress or Biden would try to uphold legislation or an executive order requiring tests and vaccines by stating it is a power given to the government through the Interstate Commerce Clause. However, Biden should already know that the government does not have the power to regulate “inherently noneconomic activity” in interstate commerce. In the ’90s, then-Senator Biden wrote and passed the Violence Against Women Act.

The Supreme Court in United States v Morrison struck down Biden’s prized possession as an overreach of Congress’ power over commerce. Because, not surprisingly, violence against women is a non-economic activity. A disgusting activity, yes. States have the requisite laws to handle this, however. The federal government does not need to encroach like a parasite onto every aspect of activity. Nor does it have the power to do so. 

“The right to travel, to go from place to place as the means of transportation permit, is a natural right subject to the rights of others and to reasonable regulation under law. A restraint imposed by the Government of the United States upon this liberty, therefore, must conform with the provisions of the Fifth Amendment that ‘No person shall be…deprived of…liberty…without due process of law.” Schactman v. Dulles.

The left will argue that it is a “reasonable regulation under law.” 

But to use the standard set by Democrats, it is my body, my choice, the government should not get involved. They want full bodily autonomy for an abortion regime which has killed more than five million babies worldwide, this year. Which, as of this recent administration, is being funded by yours and mines tax dollars. Talk about an administration actually being the direct cause of millions of deaths. You’ll never hear the left spin it that way. 

To wrap this all up, requiring testing and COVID vaccinations should be illegal, under current law, even if done by a private business and tacitly agreed to by the government. As we discussed previously, private conduct condoned by state actors to deprive people of constitutional rights is unconstitutional. Go figure. Women have the right to bodily autonomy for abortions, we must all also have the right to bodily autonomy for vaccinations. That’s what equal protection of the law means.

The motto is if you want it, get it, if you do not, don’t. It is about choice. Importantly, it is “axiomatic” the government “may not induce, encourage, or promote private persons to accomplish what [the government] is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.” 

Color me curious, but this would mean the government could not make stimulus money tied to any requirements for testing and vaccines. It cannot do anything to require or promote it. Thus, if businesses choose to, it is on them. I do not know about you, but when I have gone to places recently and been asked to put on a mask, and I say no, they tell me it’s a “federal mandate.” But, that “federal mandate” only applies to “federal land.” 

Under 42 United States Code § 1983, “every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation…of any State…subjects, or causes to be subjected, any Citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof, to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law…” 

Just as the left and democrat elite cabal (their words, not mine) used the courts to alter election laws, it is reasonable to assume they will engage in a like-strategy. That being said, we must use the laws to defend our rights from the government, not sit idle and let it be death by a thousand cuts. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *