Vaccine Mandate Precedent: Jacobson v. Massachusetts

g5000

Diamond Member
Nov 26, 2011
123,648
56,858
2,290
There was this pastor in Cambridge, Massachusetts named Henning Jacobson who had a very bad reaction to a vaccine when he was an infant. He had a painful rash for years.

So when, in 1904, the Cambridge board of health mandated that everyone in Cambridge get a smallpox vaccine, Jacobson went into full blown anti-vaxxer mode and refused.

The penalty for not getting the vaccine was $5.00. About $140 in today's funny money.

Jacobson had also strongly urged his son not to get the smallpox vaccine, but there was an employer mandate and so his son got the shot. His son then suffered a painful reaction which kept his arm in a sling for six months.

The Anti-Vaccination Society backed Jacobson's cause all the way to the US Supreme Court.

Like modern day anti-vaxxers, Jacobson argued that vaccines CAUSE disease and he made other dubious claims.

The Court did not allow him to have his "experts" in this spurious bullshit argue before the court.

They ruled 7-2 against Jacobson. This decision was later affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1922, in Zucht v. King.


 
That was local and state government, there is no federal mandate.

And there are huge differences as COVID has a survival rate of 99.98%, and millions now have a natural immunity to COVID; an immunity superior to any vaccine-provided immunity.

As it says in Jacobson:

It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law, and it is for the legislature, and not for the courts, to determine.


Neither case you present touches on any federal mandate.
 
Last edited:
You are a revolting animal, a sick, twisted deviant animal, mocking the mans case as though you had the right to decide anymore than those justices of long ago, to decide for him! When you die of some variant this winter, because you thought a gene therapy to be a vaccine, that will be a fine day! :fu:
:blahblah:
 
That was local and state government, there is no federal mandate.
That is the key difference. However, I am sure that if a federal mandate comes before the Supremes, they will refer to Jacobson and Zuch for guidance.

From Jacobson: While the exclusion of evidence in the state court in a case involving the constitutionality of a state statute may not strictly present a Federal question, this court may consider the rejection of such evidence upon the ground of incompetency or immateriality under the statute as showing its scope and meaning in the opinion of the state court.
 
False equivalence.

FauxiFlu isn't smallpox, dumbfuck.

:fu:
Immaterial.

The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint, nor is it an element in such liberty that one person, or a minority of persons residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have power to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the State.

It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law, and it is for the legislature, and not for the courts, to determine in the first instance whether vaccination is or is not the best mode for the prevention of smallpox and the protection of the public health.
 
Immaterial.

The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint, nor is it an element in such liberty that one person, or a minority of persons residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have power to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the State.

It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law, and it is for the legislature, and not for the courts, to determine in the first instance whether vaccination is or is not the best mode for the prevention of smallpox and the protection of the public health.
Very material.

The FauxiFlu has an only slightly higher mortality rate then the seasonal flu, whereas smallpox kills over 30%.....But you fascist fucks couldn't care less about actual numbers and science.

You're pissing in the wind, Heinrich.
 
Very material.

The FauxiFlu has an only slightly higher mortality rate then the seasonal flu, whereas smallpox kills over 30%.....But you fascist fucks couldn't care less about actual numbers and science.

You're pissing in the wind, Heinrich.
Oh how funny to hear an anti-vaxxer claim that math and science is important to them! :lol:
 
Can you really compare covid which is mostly survivable with smallpox which is not. On balance the Jacobsen court determined that the deaths of those unable to safely take the vaccine was an acceptable loss to prevent a Plague epidemic. Do you think dead people are an accepted loss to minimize something more than 95% of people will get over without treatment?
 
Can you really compare covid which is mostly survivable with smallpox which is not. On balance the Jacobsen court determined that the deaths of those unable to safely take the vaccine was an acceptable loss to prevent a Plague epidemic. Do you think dead people are an accepted loss to minimize something more than 95% of people will get over without treatment?
The number of people who die from the vaccine is virtually zero compared to those unvaccinated who have died from Covid.

Totally dwarfed by Covid deaths amoung the unvaccinated.

And with Covid evolving into more and more contagious versions, thanks in large part to the unvaccinated, we need to nip this in the bud before it becomes as deadly as smallpox.
 

Forum List

Back
Top