I was wondering how it was constitutional or unconstitutional. You have to read to the end to find it: Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause. I agree with the author: the Commerce Clause for forcing vaccines is not legit. It's a very ingenuine use of the Commerce Clause. The exact opposite is true. By forcing this mandate, businesses will suffer. It does not keep businesses moving and operating across state lines, it harms them and it is very costly. It also gives the witch hunters justifications to come after businesses resulting in reputational harm. "Joe's manufacturing has 40% of his workforce unvaxxed! Don't use his steel!" Here is the exact commerce clause in Article 1, Section 8: >To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes And what was the Commerce Clause intended to do? For this interested in all the SCotUS legal precedence under the Commerce Clause, check these cases out: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause But...it definitely does not look to be an accurate use of the Commerce Clause. Original intent was to prevent the states from harming each other with "local preferences" on goods and services such as out of state tariffs. I'm open to being wrong.