It's never too late to flog a deceased equine.

That being said, the recipriocal demonizations occuring in this situation distract from core rights issues.

In FP 78, Hamilton asserted that Congress was supposed to pass legislation which reflected the will of (We) the people.  If Congress substituted its will for that of the people, the courts were supposed to intervene in favor of the people.

Of course, Hamiltion said this at a time when he needed votes for ratification.  Once ratification was obtained, of Hamilton, it is said, every time he was offered a chance to vote on a measure that increased the power of the federal government, he voted FOR it.

Doubtless, Hamilton reveled in the supremacy clause.  Also doubtless, he probably did NOT revel in the 10th amendment.

The 10th amendment affirms the people's concurrence with Hamilton's (empty) promise made by him in FP 78.

Those who argue in favor of States' rights overlook the last phrase in the 10th amendment, namely

 . . . reserved . . . to the people.

Vaccination choices should be reserved to the people.

It being that such choices would not likely lead to riot or invasion, the federal government would have been hands off in 1789, and even moreso in 1791.

But according to the article above, this controversy originates in a state court.

(Maybe the anti-statists are right!)

I think I'll give the decease equine a rest at this point.

DC Treybil

It's called Judaical murder