Vaccine Mandate Precedent: Jacobson v. Massachusetts

[Darkwind]

And they can fire you if you refuse.

We'll see.

But as I have already told My employer. I will do the weekly test on their time and on their dime.

 

[g5000]

Too bad this experimental treatment for covid isn't a real vaccine. The so-called vaccinated still spread the virus and still get sick from it. You folks will have to find another path to oppression.

The vaccinated make up 4 percent of Covid deaths. The unvaccinated make up 96 percent.

You truly have to be retarded to bleev the vaccine doesn't work.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)

Jacobson v. Massachusetts: A state may enact a compulsory vaccination law, since the legislature has the discretion to decide whether vaccination is the best way to prevent smallpox and protect public health. The legislature may exempt children from the law without violating the equal protection...

supreme.justia.com

Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174 (1922)

Zucht v. King

supreme.justia.com

That's *way* too factual and nuanced for this crowd.

 

[Oddball]

That's *way* too factual and nuanced for this crowd.

It's a false equivalence....Try that on for "nuance".

 

[Skylar]

It's a false equivalence....Try that on for "nuance".

A false equivalence with what? The opening post doesn't compare the ruling to anything.

And the ruling is super clear about State authority:

"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. "

 

[Manonthestreet]

It is a good way to crash the economy again......barely keeping up right now. Those that can retire across the spectrum that dont want the vax will. Thats just for starter mayhem.

 

[Darkwind]

 

[dblack]

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

There's a federal mandate to employers, which is even worse. Do we really want employers to be vaccine cops?

 

[MinTrut]

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.​

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)

Jacobson v. Massachusetts: A state may enact a compulsory vaccination law, since the legislature has the discretion to decide whether vaccination is the best way to prevent smallpox and protect public health. The legislature may exempt children from the law without violating the equal protection...

supreme.justia.com

Neither case you present touches on any federal mandate.

Thread.

 

[Rogue AI]

The vaccinated make up 4 percent of Covid deaths. The unvaccinated make up 96 percent.

You truly have to be retarded to bleev the vaccine doesn't work.

Except for the 99+% who survive the virus, experimental treatment or not. If you wanted to mandate it for those at high risk, you might have a point. Across the board? Not a chance. You also ignore side effects and pretend they have any clue about long term effects.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

1 in 500 Americans has died of COVID. That's what you call "mostly survivable"?

 

[struth]

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.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)

Jacobson v. Massachusetts: A state may enact a compulsory vaccination law, since the legislature has the discretion to decide whether vaccination is the best way to prevent smallpox and protect public health. The legislature may exempt children from the law without violating the equal protection...

supreme.justia.com

Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174 (1922)

Zucht v. King

supreme.justia.com

Cool, States can…they have police powers.

The Federal Govt does not

 

[Skylar]

There's a federal mandate to employers, which is even worse. Do we really want employers to be vaccine cops?

Every soldier is an employee of the federal government. And they get 17 different vaccines as part of their service.

Why would an 18th suddenly cross a line? Clearly there's precedent for the federal government requiring its employees to be vaccinated.

 

[Papageorgio]

And they can fire you if you refuse.

I'm vaccinated and I will not so any proof to anyone on whether I vaccinated or not. It is my own personal business. So I will resign, before I show proof. I will not go anywhere where they require proof. I am not going to give up my rights, it's utter BS. I am not anti-vaxx, I am pro-choice, I should not of vaxxed according to my doctor but whats done is done.

 

[Rawley]

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.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)

Jacobson v. Massachusetts: A state may enact a compulsory vaccination law, since the legislature has the discretion to decide whether vaccination is the best way to prevent smallpox and protect public health. The legislature may exempt children from the law without violating the equal protection...

supreme.justia.com

Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174 (1922)

Zucht v. King

supreme.justia.com

Where, in the Federal Constitution, do you see the power for a federal vaccine mandate?

 

[Skylar]

Cool, States can…they have police powers.

The Federal Govt does not

It doesn't say that. It says that States clearly have that authority. It doesn't address the federal issue at all.

The basis of their ruling was that State vaccine mandates don't violate the 14th amendment. Given that the 14th amendment extends federal protections to restricting the States, its a bit of an uphill battle to argue that a federal mandate would somehow violate those same rights when a State mandate didn't

 

[Skylar]

Where, in the Federal Constitution, do you see the power for a federal vaccine mandate?

The General Welfare clause alone would be a solid basis.

 

[Rawley]

Every soldier is an employee of the federal government. And they get 17 different vaccines as part of their service.

Why would an 18th suddenly cross a line? Clearly there's precedent for the federal government requiring its employees to be vaccinated.

Military, not civilian.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Um... I just stopped by to ask:

Has anyone ever heard of the 10th Amendment?

 

[struth]

It doesn't say that. It says that States clearly have that authority. It doesn't address the federal issue at all.

The basis of their ruling was that State vaccine mandates don't violate the 14th amendment. Given that the 14th amendment extends federal protections to restricting the States, its a bit of an uphill battle to argue that a federal mandate would somehow violate those same rights when a State mandate didn't

The Federal Govt has limited powers that the States don’t

The Feds don’t have police powers, the states do.