I don't think Dershowitz is necessarily advocating for the things that are being proposed and floated as possible public policy, on a personal level. In context, it's more about what he believes the supreme would rule (in favour of mandatory vaccinations) if it was passed by the state as formal legislation and taken to court.
I guess many people will interpret what he is debating in different ways, depending on their own positions.
Is he just being a Douche-o-witz government programmer, or just a making a case based on the constitution - which he says is based on past precedence?
That's the real question we have to ask ourselves I guess;)
I have to hope he is wrong, but he is considered one of the pre-eminent Constitutional scholars in the world.
I find alarming the lack of mention of legal consequences to captive agencies and their corruptocrats as well as USG mandates to be vaccinated with the vile poisons they allow to be sold without manufacturer liability to people today - that making current Covid19 vaccines mandatory sentences tens of millions of Americans to debilitating side effects, and an unknown number of deaths.
Just as Kennedy advocated reading the science papers personally, and not just taking his word on it, you can do the same for Dershowitz by reading the case law. Notably, the smallpox case mentioned did not force the loser to be vaccinated, but merely pay a fine, and that is a huge difference from being forced to submit to having your DNA modified by Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci.
So, relevant case law would involve the draft, as he mentioned, and that is chilling indeed. However being drafted did not alter your DNA, your natural born self, merely putting your life at risk. At least you still died a human being if you died from being drafted.
That is not certain with DNA vaccines.
Yes, I certainly agree with you on all points. I would never advocate for the positions being debated by Deshorwitz...
Reading the actual source material and information yourself, is always a position I take personally over anybody's mere words.
Trying to be fair to Dershowitz, I note he states that his professional assessment of the SCOTUS is different from his personal feelings on the issue of mandatory vaccination.
I'm not certain that's true, but it's what he says.
I agree. As always it will come down to the interpretation of each individual. Whether he is being honest about that, is a different matter altogether.
The one thing I give him credit for, is that at least he was willing to have the discussion with Kennedy. That can only be seen as a positive.