Vermonters who wish to understand the constitutional laws that apply to vaccine mandates need not hire an attorney — they can seek truth themselves. One place to seek truth is in the recent commentary of a so-called attorney named Rick Hubbard who has distorted the law to propose implementing fascism in America. Fortunately, it is only a small percentage of uninformed fear-mongers who seek to endanger the liberties of the rest of us.
Hubbard’s hit piece on our liberties is titled “A Small Percentage of Us is Endangering a Big Percentage of Us.” This is true, but Hubbard has it upside-down, like everything else in his demonstrably silly screed — the majority of us understand our Constitution, and must shield it against perverse rationalizations to illegally discriminate against “noncompliant” citizens who don’t take Rick Hubbard’s vaccination du jour.
Hubbard wants to mandate that all people get vaccinated, but he has not explained the standard he would employ to determine which vaccinations he would have government inflict. In fact, nowhere in his ranting fantasy about China policy does he ever recite a single law — he lies instead: “But let’s remember, our Constitution provides those rights to us all. And each right is balanced by an appropriate level of responsibility.”
Hubbard cites a New York Times opinion piece as support for this non-existent, even preposterously untrue assertion. There is no such thing. “Each right is balanced by a responsibility?” No, the Constitution restrains the federal and state governments; the sole responsibility of each citizen is to uphold it, even when we don’t like it personally. Hubbard exposes himself as a person incapable of complying with that single prescription necessary to preserve our republic: “if you can keep it.” The rest of us have to “keep it” from people like Hubbard, who dare call it their own while trying to dismantle it.
For the government to restrict any fundamental right, it has the burden of proving a compelling governmental interest, accomplished by the least restrictive means. Hubbard just ignores that existing law entirely. He laments that America is so free, and wants to make it more like China.
Most of us would not be happy with China’s authoritarian “zero tolerance, strict lockdowns” approach to limit Covid’s spread. But even allowing for plenty of error in the data, it appears our nation’s biggest competitor has been extremely effective in holding down the spread of Covid. … But let’s be clear. Most current laws of Vermont, states and our nation fail to enact measures to require Covid noncompliers and the rest of us to responsibly exercise our rights. This speeds Covid to many more of us. This failure to act results in large additional numbers of avoidable sicknesses and deaths. It doesn’t have to be this way. We can find middle ground between policies we now have and China’s more draconian approach.
Hubbard extolls China as example apparently ignorant or unconcerned about the Uyghur genocide there, or the fact that China is cleaning up the virus it created and unleashed — and we are supposed to follow suit. He who would trade liberty for security deserves neither — there is no “middle ground.” But Hubbard’s right about one thing: most of us wouldn’t want to live under authoritarian Chinese rule.
Hubbard skips over the facts he would have to prove for government to do this — he presumes people are dying because of the unvaccinated, a claim stupendously unprovable because profoundly untrue. The vaccinated still get sick, and spread the disease. It’s as if Hubbard wants to target “noncompliant” Vermonters (even if they have natural immunity and are thus exponentially better protected even than him) for the vaccine’s failures rather than complain to the almighty pharmaceutical companies who promised effectiveness and rescue.
Hubbard’s proposal gets even more bizarre. He complains that there must be a federal uniformity to his new tyranny, which sounds like martial law:
These measures must require what most of us already do. All medically eligible Americans must follow best public health advice to be vaccinated, properly mask up, and social distance when in close contact with others in enclosed spaces. Most important of all, our elected leaders must impose disincentives strong enough to make noncompliers likely to comply. If we want to work in buildings with others, we must be in compliance or be furloughed without pay. If we want to shop for groceries, or other goods, or to enter any other buildings (except medical facilities) in public for whatever reason, we must be in compliance.
First of all, how does this attorney propose to enforce federal martial masking laws? Will he fill up the prisons, forcibly strap masks to faces, incarcerate noncompliers in tight spaces? Next, he wants to starve people from shopping for food, even though the vaccinated can still spread and contract the disease — try explaining that to a judge. As to hospitals, they are already refusing people medical care if unmasked, so Hubbard gets more than what he wishes for — fickle, unbridled power.
Hubbard’s hellish fantasy will never come true: He writes naively:
In part, When the stakes are high enough, evidence shows most noncompliers will change their behavior. High compliance benefits the personal and economic well-being of us all.
Actually, history shows that Americans and Vermonters rebel against tyranny — that we are profoundly noncompliant when Nazi-types demand our papers for dining or grocery shopping. The American colonists were exemplary noncompliers. We Vermonters are educated to resist the sweet-sounding lies of constitutionally-noncompliant ignoramuses. When the stakes are high enough, Vermonters will extinguish the virus that threatens their liberties and their children’s health and safety. Hubbard’s effort to overthrow the Constitution — a far more deadly and enduring virus than COVID — is a totalitarian infection against which the Constitution has already inoculated us.
If we were to examine the laws that Hubbard ignores, we’d find the Jacobson case, which allowed mandatory vaccines for smallpox — a very deadly disease. But refusal attracted a fine, not black-booted, Chinese-style military from Homeland Security watching surveillance cameras to ensure no one picks up a gallon of milk at the town general store without proof of a vaccination that protects no one. Jacobson was later used to justify eugenics and forced sterilization — which sacrificed a “small percentage of Americans” for the benefit of the whole.
Jacobson acknowledged that government held a burden to overcome before jabbing — it had to prove there was a disease sufficiently dangerous, and that the vaccines work. Hubbard would skip both of these factual analyses, just as he skips the law.
For those who are still unconvinced, step back. Ask yourself, how many more hundreds of avoidable Vermont deaths, plus hundreds of thousands of deaths nationally, we should accept by having noncompliers bear little responsibility for their actions?
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, many more Vermonters die each year of heart disease and cancer than COVID. Is COVID killing hundreds of people because of the unvaccinated? Is there any scientific proof of this laughably absurd conclusion that Hubbard fabricates? How the victims of vaccines be compensated?
Hubbard would mandate vaccines for children. How many healthy children have died from COVID in Vermont, and what standard of law would Mr. Hubbard concoct for application of his plan? In his imagined world — the “in between world” of wonderful China which is protecting its citizens from the vaccine it created for them — what is Hubbard’s standard? Would he have government inject all healthy children despite the clear evidence they are not at significant risk from COVID, while compelling complete trust in the technology?
Yes, he would. Hubbard says courts “should emphasize the responsibilities required when each of us exercises these rights.” There is no such thing, which is why courts “have increasingly emphasized our rights.” The Constitution exists to shield rights, and Hubbard seeks it as a source of the exact opposite — expanded government power in the name of imposing corollary duties — in this case, to get vaccinated. No lawyer worth his or her salt would walk into any courtroom with such balderdash, but Hubbard is nakedly proclaiming it.
Fortunately, Vermonters can easily see the folly of this thug effort, and have yet another good argument (from Hubbard) why not to get vaccinated. We are free as humans to imagine dystopian horror shows that we would try to inflict on humanity, though one must question the character and even sanity of those who hold such fantasies. But as to Constitutional law, Hubbard’s embarrassing effort to make America more like China recalls the observation of some British lads who understood the basic concepts that have evaded attorney Hubbard:
You say you’ll change the constitution
Well, you know
We’d all love to change your head …
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow.
Too bad Hubbard didn’t study The Beatles in law school. The rest of the courses appear to have been skipped.
John Klar is an attorney and farmer residing in Brookfield. © Copyright True North Reports 2022. All rights reserved.