Sen. DiFi has introduced a bill to place limits on domestic travel
It's another day ending in "Y," so there's another despotic Democrat plan to address a virus that has a >99% survival rate for people under 70. The latest entrant is Sen. Dianne Feinstein's bill requiring people flying domestically to prove their vaccine status or have a negative COVID test. Not only is this unnecessary, but it's arguably unconstitutional.
Currently, travelers are muzzled from the time they enter the airport until they head out the airport doors at their ultimate destination. It's ridiculous. I don't need scientific studies to know that cloth masks that people take on and off repeatedly, stuff into bags or pockets, and wear for days are more likely to spread than to retard a virus that is, in any event, so small that the masks are like using chain-link fences to stop mosquitoes.
And did I mention that, for people under 70, the survival rate for those who catch COVID is greater than 99%? Perhaps, if the government wasn't making it impossible for doctors and pharmacies to give people with COVID ivermectin or the hydroxychloroquine regimen upon diagnosis, the mortality rate would be even lower. In a sane world, once it's determined a person has a problem that can and should immediately be treated with medicine, it would be malpractice not to give him an early intervention therapeutic.
My point, again, is that COVID is less risky than we're told, masks are silly, and the government is intentionally trying to worsen our risks. However, while masks have dubious efficacy, they are still a relatively minimal infringement on our freedom to travel between states. Compare that with DiFi's proposed bill:
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today introduced the U.S. Air Travel Public Safety Act, a bill that would require all passengers on domestic airline flights to either be fully vaccinated, have recently tested negative for COVID-19 or have fully recovered from COVID-19.
No longer are we talking about irritating but minimally intrusive masks. Now, to travel from one state to another, people must have injected in them a substance many believe is dangerous or that violates their religious beliefs, or they must, at great cost and inconvenience, have a medical procedure performed in order to fly. That's beginning to be a serious impediment to interstate travel...and that, I think one can argue, is unconstitutional.
In Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999), the Supreme Court made it clear that the right to travel between states is one of the oldest, most necessary rights, inherent in America's creation and union:
The "right to travel" discussed in our cases embraces at least three different components. It protects the right of a citizen of one State to enter and to leave another State, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second State, and, for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents, the right to be treated like other citizens of that State.
It was the right to go from one place to another, including the right to cross state borders while en route, that was vindicated in Edwards v. California, 314 U. S. 160 (1941), which invalidated a state law that impeded the free interstate passage of the indigent. We reaffirmed that right in United States v. Guest, 383 U. S. 745 (1966), which afforded protection to the "'right to travel freely to and from the State of Georgia and to use highway facilities and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce within the State of Georgia.'" Id., at 757.
For the purposes of this case ... we need not identify the source of that particular right in the text of the Constitution. The right of "free ingress and regress to and from" neighboring States, which was expressly mentioned in the text of the Articles of Confederation, [fn.] may simply have been "conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created." Id., at 758.
This unwritten right is infinitely stronger than the imaginary rights to abortion and same-sex "marriage," given that it traces its roots back in an unbroken lineage to America's founding.
One more thing: Last September, the woman who currently wants to block Americans from traveling was spotted without a mask at the D.C. airport. And she wasn't vaccinated, either, because there were no vaccinations then.
DiFi's bill should be laughed out of Congress as another effort to create a two-tiered society, one that marginalizes people who don't find it necessary to take a questionable gene therapy to treat an illness with, for most, a minuscule mortality rate. Moreover, the vaccine fanatics, even as they gloat over their presumably immune-enhanced status, must stop feeling the compulsive need to control those who resist. Sadly, Democrats will applaud it and, at least in the House, too many quisling Republicans will, too.
Image: Unmasked Dianne Feinstein at the D.C. Airport last September. YouTube screen grab.
To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.