The men who gathered in that blistering humid room in Philadelphia in 1787 to create our governing document did not represent a cross section of the American population. Unlike most Americans, they were wealthy lawyers and planters and most were extremely well-educated. Though they may not have all attended universities, they were well read in history and political philosophy. We know the major influences of men like Locke and Montesquieu upon our governing documents, but we know little today of James Harrington.
All of the founders were familiar with Harrington. His writing was the inspiration for the original South Carolina government and in many ways also on the Constitution. If we want to try to understand the thinking behind the Constitution, and make better historical arguments, it is helpful to know what inspired the men who wrote it.
Writing during the rule of Oliver Cromwell, Harrington described the fictional utopian nation of Oceana. The Commonwealth of Oceana, like all utopian novels, was meant to shed light on the author’s own government and its shortcomings. Harrington criticized Cromwell, thinly veiled as Olphaus Megaletor in the tract, and served time in the Tower for his criticism. Harrington believed that all political power should be shared by men of property and that property should be distributed amongst the middle class, a concept shared later by Thomas Jefferson. Harrington believed that these property holders should vote for senators who serve limited terms so all could take turns in governing. Like most political philosophers of the time, Harrington saw these men as those who had a stake in society and so should hold the power. Power should also be held in a bicameral legislature, with a lesser and greater house making the laws.
The key to freedom for Harrington was that the property holding citizens had an obligation to serve in the militia. Under the Cromwell rule, the army had become a tool for tyranny. Not being property holders themselves, Cromwell’s solders did not have a stake in society and cared little for the rights of the people. They had become professional soldiers, whose only loyalty was to Cromwell.
If the property holding citizens were the militia, he believed, they would not drain the purse. More importantly, they would be the ones who ruled. If they attacked the system, they would only be attacking the system that placed them in power. In other words, a standing army can lead to tyranny, whereas an armed citizenry of stakeholders leads to democracy.
Another author every founder knew was Thomas Gordon who wrote under the name “Cato.” The original Cato was a Roman Senator who stood against Caesar and was a popular pen name for anyone representing republicanism. In his 1722 Cato Letter #65, Gordon wrote, “In attacks upon a free state, every man will fight to defend it, because every man has something to defend in it. He is in love with his condition, his ease, and property, and will venture his life rather than lose them; because with them he loses all the blessings of life. When these blessings are gone, it is madness to think that any man will spill his blood for him who took them away, and is doubtless his enemy, though he may call himself his prince. It is much more natural to wish his destruction, and help to procure it.”
Harrington understood there would always be those who tried to take advantage of the stakeholders, like Cromwell, who wanted to take power. The answer was for stakeholders to practice public virtue, the ability to look beyond themselves for the good of the state. As we see from Cato, virtuous citizens must be willing to lose their lives for the good of the state.
You can see the influence of Harrington and Gordon in the creation of the Bill of Rights. They both saw a standing army as a potential for tyranny, hence, the Second Amendment. I am not trying to make an argument for or against gun control here, only to show the influences on the founders and their points of view.
What can be drawn from understanding men like Harrington is the concept of virtue. There have been so many arguments as to why we are so divided today and why there are so many issues such as random violence. I have heard blame placed on a loss of God, a growth in white supremacy, the NRA, and violent video games. Maybe what we have really lost is public virtue. Maybe what we have lost is the willingness to give our lives for what we believe in and to put public virtue before ourselves. Historically speaking, Oceana may be a fictional nation, but maybe Harrington understood something. If we could ever bring back the notion of public virtue, maybe we could attack the causes of our divide instead of always having to fix the consequences.
Dr. James Finck is an Associate Professor of History at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma and Chair of the Oklahoma Civil War Symposium. Follow Historically Speaking at www.Historicallyspeaking.blog or Facebook at @jamesWfinck.
Does the council also object to professional licensure as a requirement for employment in hospitals?
The price Front Royal will pay for refusing to mask up, vaccinated or not, will be paid by the children who will sit in classrooms all day with high levels of virus swirling about, each a little incubator for viral mutations, to be carried home to the family at the end of the day. Are you really advocating risking their young lives, or the devastation of lifelong complications of COVID, for your personal “freedom”? This is not the same as foregoing mental health counseling or a lipid medication. This is a deadly, debilitating, and highly contagious disease that has already killed over 600,000 people nationally!
The risk of a side effect from COVID vaccines is minuscule compared to the huge risk of suffering and dying from COVID. If you want to live in a healthy and prosperous community, then mask up and protect your children. In the final analysis, the cost to FR will be a personal tragedy, lost income, exorbitant medical costs, long-term suffering, and economic decline. Is this what you are advocating?
Warren County, Virginia
A challenging year at the Humane Society of Warren County
Much like every year, we are facing challenges associated with another difficult kitten season. When you think of our shelter kittens, we hope you think of clean fluffy bright-eyed youngsters, but the reality is much different. Kittens come to us from car engines, hotel ceilings, born at a construction site, covered in ticks, lice, ringworm; with broken legs, viruses, infections, you name it. A far cry from the end result that you are familiar with.
We struggle behind the scenes every year to save as many of them as can be done, with huge thanks to our foster families who fight alongside us. We have many successes, but also many are too far behind to be saved, despite every effort.
This year has been especially challenging, as one of those kittens born on the street came to us with a very deadly virus, panleukopenia. 90% of cats and kittens who get this virus perish. You may have seen that we have shut down all cat adoptions, cat intakes, and cat volunteering as we laser focus on our protocols to keep the 94 cats and kittens in our care safe. Your patience and understanding are much appreciated.
Additionally, we have recently lost our long-time Community Outreach Coordinator Sue, who has decided to step back from the incredibly challenging job of managing our foster program and volunteers. She will be greatly missed, but we will continue on with our work at the same level that you expect from us.
We are dealing with two big challenges at once, but we continue to hold our no-kill status, offer life-saving community programs, and the commitment to our mission. We hope you will “excuse our dust” as we work through things and emerge as strong as ever.
This year has been an excellent reminder of why we worked so hard to get our “HSWC Spay Clinic – Linda R. Lorber Campus” up and running. Perhaps next year will be a little easier on us, and a little more every year after that.
Humane Society of Warren County
Editor’s note on ‘Forced Medical Treatment versus Human Rights’
Might I begin by observing that I think neither side of the COVID-19 vaccination debate has cornered the market on the type of “fear mongering” Mr. Randolph attributes to the pro-vaccination side. But my focus here is the way certain referenced data is presented toward anti-vaccine conclusions and whether such conclusions are borne out by that data.
Mr. Randolph states that, “Credible sources, such as the Center for Disease Control’s (CDC’s) Voluntary Adverse Effect Reports System (VAERS), give thousands of examples of death and hundreds of thousands of serious side effects from the shots.”
However, a check of the CDC website offers this opening summary of VAERS work: “VAERS is an early warning system used to monitor adverse events that happen after vaccination. VAERS is the frontline system of a comprehensive vaccine safety monitoring program in the United States. It is one of several systems CDC and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) use to help ensure all vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccines, are safe.”
So, obviously the CDC and Mr. Randolph do not draw the same conclusion from the statistics VAERS is reporting regarding COVID-19 vaccine use.
Perhaps a clue as to why might be found at the VAERS website under “Guide to Interpreting” and “Evaluating VAERS data” where it is explained that “When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established,” adding that, “VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.”
So, Mr. Randolph’s conclusion that: “The actual numbers of adverse reactions are said to be much higher” might certainly come under dispute – and one might ask, “said to be much higher” by who?
Mr. Randolph also states that, “Because of deficiencies in testing, many cases get reported when there are no symptoms. Even the CDC admits that 94% of COVID deaths had underlying medical conditions.”
It is known that many healthy people can contract the COVID-19 Coronavirus without symptoms, become carriers and pass the disease on to others who may be more susceptible to severe consequences from the disease. – So, is detecting the disease in an asymptomatic person really “a deficiency in testing”? – I would contend not.
As to a CDC “admission” that 94% of COVID deaths “had underlying medical conditions” one might ask what that proves or doesn’t prove? Is it possible the Coronavirus impacted the pre-existing condition, launching the health consequences of a condition previously stabilized or in remission? I have personally heard several anti-vaccination advocates portray just such a scenario when pre-existing conditions are said to have flared up following COVID-19 vaccinations.
A referenced article Mr. Randloph included during our conversation about his letter, in support of his concerns about the role of pre-existing conditions in COVID-19 deaths was published by Michigan TV network WEYI in September 2020. That article quotes Michigan Department of Health and Human Services representative Lynn Stutfin observing that, “Since the start of the pandemic, older individuals and those with underlying conditions were considered the most vulnerable to this deadly virus and likely to have the most severe outcomes. This recently released CDC data reinforces that information.”
An accurate comparison of data regarding such disease and vaccine interactions with pre-existing conditions might give a more reliable reading of the relative dangers of being vaccinated or not. Does such data exist? Let us know if you believe you have found it, preferably with a medically driven direct cause-and-effect conclusion.
As to Mr. Randolph’s closing question, “Since when do politicians get away with practicing medicine without a license by mandating universal medical treatments?” I would suggest, after a slight rewording of the question – the answer is since contagious public health emergencies have been identified and vaccines to immunize from contagious diseases like polio, among others, have been achievable.
As to the rewording, I would suggest “politicians practicing medicine” would be better phrased as “politicians authorizing medical and public health professionals to proceed urgently toward development of public-health-emergency counter measures, including vaccines believed to be safe, if not tested in the protracted manner of a non-emergency public health situation.”
So, is Mr. Randolph “fear-mongering” in how he presents his data? Probably not, more likely he has fallen into a common trap of interpreting data in a manner that supports one’s pre-conceived notions about a topic. I have attempted to avoid that trap in focusing on what his referenced sources say about the issues raised in his letter. Was I successful? – That is for you readers, and Mr. Randolph, to assess.
I want to close with a look at Mr. Randolph’s root issue of “Forced Medical Treatment and Human Rights” in making public-health-emergency vaccination decisions. Let’s not lose sight that employer vaccine mandates are not forcing someone to get a vaccination against their will, rather they are being asked to do so to continue employment in sectors where contamination of a client base and/or co-workers is an issue. So, whose human rights have precedence – a person to continued employment after declining to be vaccinated or their customers’ and co-workers’, some perhaps particularly at-risk, in seeking maximum assurances they will not be infected with a potentially fatal disease by interacting with that employee?
One would hope that in seeking an answer to that question, both sides in the debate rely on the most verifiable and comprehensive data on the COVID-19 Coronavirus pandemic and the vaccines developed to fight it.
Forced Medical Treatment versus Human Rights
A recent letter to the editor said people know what’s being said about the division of American society over the pandemic and medical intervention called for to address it. Most people also should realize there’s no consensus over the safety of an unproven treatment that for many individuals might be worse than the disease.
mRNA injections such as those manufactured by Moderna and Pfizer do not have full FDA approval. In particular, there’s been no long-term testing. If these treatments are “safe and effective,” why have politicians dispensed the companies that make them from any liability from damage done to persons who receive them?
Even if courts have upheld the ability of a private company and even school districts to compel “vaccination,” that doesn’t make it morally right. Historically, U.S. courts have upheld the ability of private persons to keep other persons as slaves.
If fear of possible illness keeps you under self-imposed lock-in, then you are either free to do that or you are a slave to media-driven paranoia. If you are a victim of fear-mongering, what prevents you from venturing forth in a hazmat suit?
Credible sources, such as the Center for Disease Control’s (CDC) Voluntary Adverse Effect Reports System (VEARS), give thousands of examples of death and hundreds of thousands of serious side effects from the shots. This reporting system is cumbersome to use and offers no real incentive to enter cases. The actual number of adverse reactions is said to be much higher.
Government statistics show practically a 100% recovery rate for children and older people in good health. Because of deficiencies in testing, many cases get reported when there are no symptoms. Even the CDC admits that 94% of COVID deaths had underlying medical conditions.”
Since when do politicians get away with practicing medicine without a license by mandating universal medical treatments? There must be big money in it.
Front Royal, Virginia
Editor replies to Kushner’s criticism and perspective on what a newspaper should be
Mr. Kushner has always taken my replies, clarifications, whatever you want to call them, personally. I have told him more than once, they are not personal, but simply an editorial reaction to his presenting his opinions as facts, particularly when those opinions advance a partisan political ideology. It is a policy not reserved for him alone, but done on any Letter to the Editor sent to me for review that presents opinions as facts in any context. I’ve found on most occasions when explained that it is the wording presentation, rather than the expression of an opinion I might personally agree or disagree with, the writer is willing to reword to avoid confusion, and in some cases potential libel or slander liability which this paper will not risk. Mr. Kushner has made it clear he does not appreciate his submissions being suggested for rewording, particularly by me, so that course is not pursued. Hence, responses for clarification such as the one tied to his open letter to Joe Manchin.
And may I point out that while Mr. Kushner’s personal sense of “his space” on our editorial page may be offended by it, attaching an editorial response to reader submissions when necessary is not an unprecedented Opinion page methodology, though in a virtual world it may bear rethinking. And actually, I liked the separate, adjacent reply with its own headline better than the originally submitted editorial note at the end of his letter. But there was certainly no “scurrilous attempt” to conceal the response from him – but “paranoia does strike deep; into your heart, it will creep” (a musical nod to The Buffalo Springfield’s ‘For What It’s Worth’)
Let me begin where Mr. Kushner ended his 2214-word commentary on my 4-point reply to his Manchin letter, with his closing accusation that my belief system, which I have attempted to accurately represent below, as opposed to his negative stereotyping, doesn’t reflect “the majority conservative perspective of our community” and should perhaps disqualify me from continued employment at Royal Examiner.
I will say that my publisher and I, while we may not always agree on the national political scene, agree that our job, the job of any responsible newspaper, is not to represent a community’s majority political opinion, nor anyone else’s, as truth, but rather to accurately report what we cover, and ask appropriate questions to give context, motive, and any other relevant aspects to governmental and citizen initiatives and actions impacting the community. If we feel it necessary to deliver an opinion, it is so identified.
To bend reporting to reflect a majority’s, or minority’s for that matter, partisan political ideology is commonly known as “propaganda”. And in many totalitarian societies, such partisan ideology promotion masquerades as “news”.
Verbally and in writing, Mr. Kushner tends to present his highly partisan political opinions as objective facts. Consequently, on the letter-writing side, it has fallen to me in an editorial role to point out where his opinions and objectively supportable facts may clash. Since Mr. Kushner seems not to believe in any truth outside his partisan ideological perspective, that has brought us into conflict. And since we have personally talked enough about our relative socio-political perceptions for him to have developed a not entirely accurate perception of my politics, Mr. Kushner attributes political motive to my editorial comments on his letters.
As to Mr. Kushner’s assumptions about my belief system, let me say that I do not give blanket approval to social welfare programs not thought out to balance the “general Welfare” and the national economic means to achieve that welfare. Let me also say, I do not believe everyone or even a majority in need of social welfare are lazy people, often stereotyped as a specific race, seeking a free ride on the backs of hard-working people. I might add that Democratic Administrations are not the only ones to operate at a budget deficit, and Republicans generally manage to create their deficits without the variable of social safety net programs vilified as “free rides for the lazy”.
Let me reiterate several points I have made to Mr. Kushner verbally in the past, several of which he continues to ignore:
1 – I am a political independent, and have never been registered to ANY political party, in my life. I have not been a fan of either the Republican or Democratic Party national hierarchies since the 1970’s when I studied Political Science as an elective in gaining a Bachelor’s Degree in Sociology, with credits for a minor in Psychology from VCU. All three of those disciplines, I believe, gave me an excellent perspective to eventually end up in the field of journalism and political governmental beat reporting.
2 – My socio-political perspective guiding my personal beliefs is that a person must balance personal liberty with social responsibility to their neighbors, and to the nation as a whole. No, I don’t believe in unnecessary governmental influence in one’s personal business conducted at home or on private property. However, when one’s personal business is taken into the streets, into the general population, how behaviors impact others must be a concern of every citizen. People who couldn’t accept that standard, I believe used to be called hermits – because at least they had the courtesy to take their anti-social tendencies away from the society they did not want to be a part of.
3 – And yes, I do believe the wealthy, the truly rich, should be taxed more than the middle and lower classes to support general welfare and other governmental programs to a national and collective good because they can afford it.
Does that make Roger – OH, SHIVER-SHIVER – a progressive socialist philosophically aligned with leftist “demons” like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders? Perhaps, though I have recently created a new political category for myself to explain conflicting perceptions of what I believe socially and politically. I have declared myself the first “Conservative Anarchist” – at least I think I’m the first.
What is the Conservative Anarchist ideology, you may ask: It means that while I don’t believe in any societal rules to limit my behavior, I don’t believe in breaking the existing rules either – hence, Conservative Anarchy.
That said, as to Mr. Kushner’s objection to my first point on the opening paragraph of the U.S. Constitution’s reference to “promote the general Welfare” as a fourth and “final” specific goal in establishing the rationale for the Constitution guiding the American nation while leaving out “and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” I will admit to looking at that final phrase differently than the four preceding it. That difference to my mind was the more general nature of the reference to “Blessings of Liberty” – Liberty from what, the British Crown and British taxes? Or perhaps from a notion 200-odd years later that an effort to minimize rampant domestic mass murder incidents by instituting legal controls on who could own and in what social settings firearms, hand-held semi-automatic weapons in particular (which didn’t exist in 1787), could be publicly carried?
Regardless of your perspective on that 21st-century liberty issue, it seemed to me that “Justice” (treat everybody fairly by a set legal standard), “domestic Tranquility” (a social expectation of general livability), “common defense” (an organized central defensive force), and “general Welfare” (survivable living conditions for the general population) were all more specific and easily identified references, while “Blessings of Liberty” was a more general end result of the previous four. If mistaken, I apologize. But I ask, how in 1787 might the Founding Fathers of the American experiment in democratically based representative government have viewed personal liberty issues of the 21st century? Since they’re not here to ask, we can only guess and express opinions, so here is mine:
Somehow I doubt it would be the “Me First/Every Man for Himself” personal liberties outlook of the late 20th and early 21st centuries that would arbitrarily judge an individual’s right to act their opinions out in a public context, above the group’s right to collective survival. Particularly with their introductory concerns about insuring “domestic Tranquility” and promoting “the general Welfare” – their capitalizations – I doubt the Founding Fathers would share the modern Sovereign Citizen or Libertarian perspectives on securing “the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”.
And that IS my opinion based on readings about them, and the written words of some of them on their collective desire for the new American nation to strive toward a more perfect union, including the final line of the Declaration of Independence in which the signees, some wealthy landowners: “mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor” in support of the creation of the new, independent nation” outside control of the British government they were about to go to war with.
And as to Mr. Kushner’s lengthy analysis of presidential election results, congressional majorities, and minorities, and legislative mandates I will say a few things:
In addition to gaining the White House by a nearly 7-million vote majority in 2020, the Democrats currently have working majorities in both houses of Congress, despite the gains Republicans made in the House in 2020 – This isn’t advanced math, Gary, a bigger minority (in the House of Representatives) is STILL a minority. So, it would appear that currently, the Democrats do have a legislative majority, coupled with a president, elected by the American people with which to forward proposals reflecting their socio-political agenda, just as Republicans do when they have the majority.
And in my opinion, Mr. Kushner’s level of outrage at that thought appears to reflect an increasing tendency of the American political right to stereotype people and legislation they disagree with as fundamentally “evil”, often in a religious context, and allied with shadowy figures of darkness like Communism, the Chinese (also Communists), Dr. Fauci and the medical establishment, or perhaps Satan himself, rather than simply Americans with differing social and political perspectives with whom one can negotiate toward a resolution regarding costs and details for a common American good.
Is believing in and striving toward an economically elevated common good such a sin?
Should people who believe in legislatively lending a helping hand to the less fortunate among us be characterized as shadow communists, or on a more fundamental level, evil? I don’t know, maybe we should reference the historical record of the teachings of Jesus for an answer. And while Jesus didn’t lobby for governmental legislation “to sell your possessions and give to the poor” he did threaten the withholding of heaven from those who failed to follow his instructions, and there were many given in this regard.
And on the subject of “Saviors”, including self-anointed ones, as to the rightful occupant of the White House, we’re back to square one with Mr. Kushner: “There is irrefutable evidence that voting activities occurred in 2020 in several states that were inconsistent with procedures approved by their legislatures which resulted in illegal votes that could have influenced the election outcome,” he wrote.
Opinion, Gary, not fact.
And in my editorial opinion, one verified by every court review – was it 30? – often overseen by Republican-appointed judges, and reported by reputable news sources (to some degree anyway, as opposed to online conspiracy websites) the only verified 2020 electoral fraud found by any court, or legitimate recount in any state, as I understand the reports, amounted to 12 votes here, 30 votes there, and the like – the type of individual pathological behavior fraud that occurs in every election, but not an organized institutional fraud in the numbers to have changed any state’s presidential result in 2020.
So, no matter how many places you read it, Gary – NO, the ghosts of Manuel Noriega and Fidel Castro did not rise up into 2020 voting machines to “white-out” – that’s the technology those ghosts would understand, isn’t it?!? – millions of Trump voters. Didn’t happen – and that IS my opinion, but one based in a factual, not an “alternate factual”, universe.
And while I have a hunch, you won’t agree no matter how many state courts and state legislatures contradict your opinion, I think we have both sufficiently made our respective cases – and will just have to agree to disagree.
Consequently, I have editorially recommended that publication of our conflicting perspectives on reality and journalism end here.
Pandemic Vaccine Si, Pandemic Vaccine No
No one can really deny knowing what is going on around the world as the Covid-19 (and its variants) Pandemic continue to tighten their grip. Everyone in North America who reads a newspaper, watches television, uses a computer or talks to a friend knows about the division of American society over use of existing vaccine as a preventive mechanism against the Covid-19 disease and its dangerous variants.
When I first commented in the Blog/Newsletter on the Pandemic (August of 2020), the scourge was overcoming American and worldwide medical capability – resulting in illness and death rates not seen in over 100 years (including wars). Now, thanks be to God and tremendous efforts by healthcare workers and many others devoted to keeping us all going in spite of disease, we have several vaccines which have proven again and again to be effective in 1/ preventing the disease; and 2/ if a “breakthrough” case should happen, lessen the severity and increase the survivability of illness.
Yet, a huge portion of American society (at this writing – virtually half of U.S. adult population) currently refuses to take the vaccination even if they are “health-qualified”. I find this personally frustrating and terribly disappointing because my wife (known to many readers – Bryane Miller Lickson) cannot take the vaccination for valid health reasons. So, now she is in Day 521 of a self-imposed lock-in. When we do go out to shop, bank etc., she and I are both masked.
The other morning, I was listening and watching the news on television. A young woman in Alabama was interviewed and she expressed her view that vaccination was not necessary. She was 22 years old and, in very good health (in her opinion). She saw absolutely no reason to take the vaccine. Many people – especially in the U.S. – and other countries where vaccines are plentiful – are wrestling over a decision:
Vaccine – Si or Vaccine No.
Credible scientific sources have said many times at the highest levels of government and public health (including my own Alma Mater – Johns Hopkins) that the vaccines are both safe and effective. But there are people also all over the world and very out-spoken here in the U.S. who would make a two-pronged argument against taking the jab. They would assert 1/ that they have heard that the vaccines are not only not helpful, but may cause serous long term negative side effects – both physical and psychological. 2/ And they argue also that no one is going to compel them to take a vaccine.
A good and very bright female friend of both Bryane and me went on to say: “If you can compel one to take a vaccine, we can no longer call ourselves a democracy.” The case against compelling the vaccine reflects in many minds, the issue of freedom of choice – a freedom that they hold dear. In the United States, this includes half the adult population – not yet vaccinated and probably many people who have been vaccinated at least once.
Those of us who also hold that freedom dear, but also hold that human life has a dear value, would hope and maybe even plead for the U.S. to get as many people vaccinated as quickly as we can. Medical and legal evidence is clear; without vaccination – maybe even by compelling it as many employers, schools and others do, we won’t win this battle – very possibly the biggest battle (including war) we will ever face.
As pointed out by Professor Lawrence Gostin of Georgetown Law (my law school alma mater) speaking about the possible clash between health and human rights – Gostin is an accepted expert on both Public Health and the Law – He has said the greatest value offered by government here or abroad is equity. He is quoted on the Smerconish CNN TV Show and Blog: “We need heath that is fairly allocated to everybody – health with justice.”
It is a fact that so far the courts have upheld the ability of a private company and even school districts to compel vaccination. The only exceptions that have so far been recognized, have been acceptable religious or valid health reasons not to vaccinate.
Several states have tried to limit the legal right of private companies to compel vaccination. Laws banning compulsion to vaccinate or offer proof of vaccination have been routinely over-ruled. It may be that the very survivability of life is at stake here. I’m afraid that many so-called “patriots” do not recognize the crisis the Pandemic has presented.
This Newsletter is about opinion, so, my opinion is: While I have great respect for our freedom of choice here in America, I value the continuation of human life in this country. I think – wish it were not so – that compulsion may be required and must be considered to force Covid vaccination or ban people from many positions, cruises, schools and maybe in serving in the military or other government service.
Charles P. Lickson
Front Royal, Virginia
(Charles P. Lickson, President of LALO, is a former practicing attorney turned mediator and writer He has stated his opinion here and invites reasoned opinions from readers. If you have something to say about the Pandemic or another subject – which might cause us some “conflict of choice”, please send your thoughts to: Webmaster@lalopublishing.com) First appeared in Lickson’s “Ironing Out Newsletter”)