With more and more information coming out about the severity of this pandemic, people are starting to wake up to the reality of what is really going on, and they aren't happy. As we continue to see the sharp drop off from the doomsday predictions back in March, citizens are starting to ask why their governments aren't letting them out. Alan Dershowitz, respected attorney and professor, gets it completely wrong on the notion that the Constitution does not grant you the right to not have the state "plunge a needle into your arm." We discuss the police power and how far government can go, and it's much less than Dershowitz says. Show Notes Alan Dershowitz States Government Absolutely Has the Power to Plunge Needle In Your Arm https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2020/05/19/watch-alan-dershowitz-makes-the-case-for-government-mandated-coronavirus-vaccine-n2569134 Text from California Supreme Court Case Miller v. Board of Public Works of City of Los Angeles: The police power of a state is an indispensable prerogative of sovereignty and one that is not to be lightly limited. Indeed, even though at times its operation may seem harsh, the imperative necessity for its existence precludes any limitation upon its exercise save that it be not unreasonably and arbitrarily invoked and applied. Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 239 U. S. 394, 36 S. Ct. 143, 60 L. Ed. 348, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 927; District of Columbia v. Brooke, 214 U. S. 138, 149, 29 S. Ct. 560, 53 L. Ed. 941. It is not, however, illimitable and the marking and measuring of the extent of its exercise and application is determined by a consideration of the question of whether or not any invocation of that power, in any given case, and as applied to existing conditions, is reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety, morals (Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465, 470, 471, 24 L. Ed. 527; Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 25, 24 L. Ed. 989), or general welfare of the people of a community (Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. Ill., 200 U. S. 561, 592, 26 S. Ct. 341, 50 L. Ed. 596, 4 Ann. Cas. 1175). In short, the police power, as such, is not confined within the narrow circumscription of precedents, resting upon past conditions which do not cover and control present day conditions obviously calling for revised regulations to promote the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the public; that is to say, as a commonwealth develops politically, economically, and socially, the police power likewise develops, within reason, to meet the changed and changing conditions. What was at one time regarded as an improper exercise of the police power may now, because of changed living conditions, be recognized as a legitimate exercise of that power. This is so because: ‘What was a reasonable *485 exercise [of this power] in the days of our fathers may to-day seem so utterly unreasonable as to make it difficult for us to comprehend the existence of conditions that would justify same; what would by our fathers have been rejected as unthinkable is to-day accepted as a most proper and reasonable exercise thereof.’ Streich v. Board of Education, 34 S. D. 169, 147 N. W. 779, L. R. A. 1915A, 632, Ann. Cas. 1917A, 760. Miller v. Board of Public Works of City of Los Angeles (1925) 195 Cal. 477, 484–485 [234 P. 381, 383]