Vaccine Mandate Precedent: Jacobson v. Massachusetts

[TemplarKormac]

Your opinion isn't legal precedent.

Nor is yours.

 

[OKTexas]

Try quoting Madison to support your argument. I've got Federalist 78 right here if you'd like to discuss the judiciary's authority to interpret the constitution.

As so far, the only one you've cited....is yourself. And with your 'post constitutional' babble, you've acknowledged the irrelevance of your perspective on any likely legal outcomes.

So I ask again....what is the point of your gibbering? Your opinion isn't legal precedent. You acknowledge that your opinion has no relevance on actual court cases. And you've provided us nothing that predicts the outcome of future cases.

I'm not on my primary computer, I'll do it later when I have it handy. But you can start with these.

James Madison Quotes About Limited Government | A-Z Quotes

Discover James Madison quotes about limited government. Share with friends. Create amazing picture quotes from James Madison quotations.

www.azquotes.com

.

 

[struth]

Do you not read your own cites?






The federal government has LIMITED police powers, not NO police powers.

haha limited powers. not limited police powers

Nowhere in your quote does it say limited police powers

i will say, they likely do on federal property. But we aren’t talking about that now are we

 

[Skylar]

I'm not on my primary computer, I'll do it later when I have it handy.

.

You clearly have the internet where you happen to be. You can find Federalist 48 in seconds.

You're stalling.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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

For one thing that's not true. Deaths are identified as covid when they are no such thing. For another, I in 500 would be a slight death rate if it were smallpox.

 

[dblack]

You clearly have the internet where you happen to be. You can find Federalist 48 in seconds.

You're stalling.

Don't get your panties in a wad. Some people have lives.

 

[Skylar]

Don't get your panties in a wad. Some people have lives.

It takes 2 second to find federalist 48. If you have time enough to lament about how you're not on your primary computer, you have the time and internet to look it up.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Try quoting Madison to support your argument. I've got Federalist 78 right here if you'd like to discuss the judiciary's authority to interpret the constitution.

As so far, the only one you've cited....is yourself. And with your 'post constitutional' babble, you've acknowledged the irrelevance of your perspective on any likely legal outcomes.

So I ask again....what is the point of your gibbering? Your opinion isn't legal precedent. You acknowledge that your opinion has no relevance on actual court cases. And you've provided us nothing that predicts the outcome of future cases.

"These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other."

-James Madison, Federalist 46

 

[TemplarKormac]

You clearly have the internet where you happen to be. You can find Federalist 48 in seconds.

You're stalling.

You ignored the link he posted.

 

[Skylar]

"These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other."

-James Madison, Federalist 46

To which I reply with Federalist 78:

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

So if the judiciary, in the role as constitutionally delegated interpreters of the constitution have deemed a piece of legislation to be within the authority of granted the legislative branch by the Constitution.....how then does OKTexas having a personal opinion contrary to both have any legal or constitutional relevance?

He's not 'the people'. He's not the legislative, he's not the judiciary. Why then would I ignore Madison on the authority of the courts, ignore the courts on their interpretations of the constitution, ignore the legislative branch on the authority they've exercised in creating OSHA.....

.....and instead believe yet another pseudo-legal internet 'legal expert' claiming to trump them all?

This judge dredd "I AM THE LAW' bullshit might play well in sovereign citizen circles, but it has zero relevance in an actual court of law. Precedent does. The judicial power certainly does. As does the legislative power.

 

[TemplarKormac]

To which I reply with Federalist 78:

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

So if the judiciary, in the role of their constitutionally delegated interpreters of the constitution have deemed a piece of legislation to be within the authority of granted the judiciary by the Constitution.....how then does OKTexas having a personal opinion contrary to both have any legal or constitutional relevance?

He's not 'the people'. He's not the legislative, he's not the judiciary. Why then would ignore Madison on the authority of the courts, ignore the courts on their interpretations of the constitution, ignore the legislative branch on the authority they've exercised in creating OSHA.....

.....and instead believe yet another pseudo-legal internet 'legal expert' claiming to trump them all?

This judge dredd "I AM THE LAW' bullshit might play well in sovereign citizen circles, but it has zero relevance in an actual court of law. Precedent does. The judicial power certainly does.

To which I counter with Federalist 48:

"The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution...it may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."

State's powers.

 

[Skylar]

To which I reply with Federalist 48:

"The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution...it may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgement; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgements."

Indeed. And it is in this judgment that they have found no conflict between the constitution and the legislative branches authority to create OSHA.

Which federalist 78 clearly indicates the Judiciary has the authority to do.

Recognizing that you, Templar are not 'the people', nor is OKTexas 'the People', where is the conflict under the constituional authority to create OSHA? Its not in the judiciary, the legislative or the executive. All of signed off on this constitutional authority.

Where then?

Or is really just another arm chair warrior insisting that their personal opinion is legally binding precedent that supercedes any law, any ruling or any execution of the law? If so, its just more sovereign citizen quackary.

 

[konradv]

That is incomplete data, without knowing the numbers of asymptomatic people it is barely a rough estimate.

But closer to the real numbers than the ridiculously high one in the post I quoted. The point is that fake news needs to be outed every time, before it becomes “common knowledge”.

 

[g5000]

haha limited powers. not limited police powers

Nowhere in your quote does it say limited police powers

i will say, they likely do on federal property. But we aren’t talking about that now are we

Once again, open your willfully blind eyes, man!

 

[g5000]

The worst thing that ever happened to. The SC was precidence over constitutional. Just because someone fuck it up before is no reason to stay with it.

Stare decisis is precisely what separated us from most of the European powers legal systems and contributed to our greatness!

 

[TemplarKormac]

"Where is the conflict under the constitutional authority to create OSHA?"

OSHA itself is not unconstitutional.

However:

"The specific legal problem the Biden administration faces is that in America’s system of federalism and the power to protect the health and safety of the people, traditionally called the “police power,” was explicitly not given to the federal government. The police power was retained by the states. From the start of our republic, the states didn’t trust the federal government to make these decisions compared to state politicians who are more responsive to the local communities.

In fact, states likely have the power to do what the federal government proposes. For instance, in the 1905 case Jacobson v. Massachusetts , the Supreme Court upheld a state law requiring either vaccination or paying a small fine. People could still refuse to be vaccinated, but the state could impose a monetary incentive.

The decision in Jacobson was explicitly founded upon the police power and the fact this is a power only states have, not the federal government. The court wrote, “The authority of the State to enact this statute is to be referred to what is commonly called the police power — a power which the State did not surrender [to the federal government] when becoming a member of the Union under the Constitution.”

So, on the basis of Jacobson, while a state could pass a law requiring employers to require vaccination or weekly testing, the federal government lacks this power. In contrast, OHSA’s power to regulate workplaces is based on the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, not public health and safety."


The lack of federal power over vaccinations under the Commerce Clause came up in oral arguments at the Supreme Court in the 2012 Obamacare case. Justice Stephen Breyer asked attorney Michael Carvin if the federal government could require most people in the country to get vaccinated under the Commerce Clause.

Carvin responded , “No, they couldn't do it because Morrison.”

In the 2000 case United States v. Morrison, the Supreme Court declared the Violence Against Women Act unconstitutional because the Commerce Clause only allows the federal government to regulate things that are economic in nature. While violence against women could obviously be regulated under states' police power, the federal government lacked this power. The Commerce Clause could not be used to get around this requirement because violence against women, although it might affect commerce, was not economic in nature.

Similarly, coercing millions of people into undergoing a medical procedure they do not want, even for their own benefit, is not economic in nature and not within the power of the Commerce Clause."

OSHA cannot constitutionally coerce people into vaccinations - Washington Examiner

President Joe Biden says he will have federal regulators make employers require workers to get vaccinated against COVID-19, or else they'll have to pay for continuous testing of the unvaccinated. That plan raises a serious constitutional problem: The federal government lacks the power to coerce...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

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

Jacobson was not forced to get the shot. He had to pay a $5 fine. Whoop dee doo.

I am not afraid to get the shots. But if they offered me $1000 to do so, I would not. I had COVID.

Freedom to make my own medical decisions is worth so much more to me.

Regards,
Jim

PS:
Getting the vax makes you more infectious....

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant Among Vaccinated Healthcare Workers, Vietnam

Background: Data on breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant infections are limited.<br><br>Methods: We studied breakthrough infections among healthcare workers of

papers.ssrn.com

The vaccine does not work against Delta, the predominant strain...

Report: Vaccinated Comprise 75% of Coronavirus Infections in Singapore​

Report: Vaccinated Comprise 75% of Coronavirus Infections in Singapore

Vaccinated individuals comprise the majority of new coronavirus infections in Singapore, according to government data.

www.breitbart.com

‘Vast majority’ of Covid-19 cluster in Cape Cod were vaccinated​

'Vast majority' of Covid-19 cluster in Cape Cod were vaccinated - Free West Media | Free West Media

In Cape Cod, a geographic cape extending into the Atlantic Ocean in Massachusetts, the vaccinated are falling ill with Covid-19. The American town with one of the highest vaccination rates in the state, now has the highest rate of new cases.

freewestmedia.com

Mild COVID-19 induces lasting antibody protection​

Good news: Mild COVID-19 induces lasting antibody protection | Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis

People who have had mild illness develop antibody-producing cells that can last lifetime

medicine.wustl.edu

Prior Infection with COVID-19 provided 100% immunity for those in the study

Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals

Background The purpose of this study was to evaluate the necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. Methods Employees of the Cleveland Clinic Health System working in Ohio on Dec 16, 2020, the day COVID-19 vaccination was started, were included. Any...

www.medrxiv.org

Scotland data. 80% of recent deaths are vaccinated...

Sources:
COVID-19 Statistical Report - 18 August 2021 - COVID-19 statistical report - Publications - Public Health Scotland (page 38)
https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/9030/21-09-08-covid19-publication_report.pdf (page 40)

And here is data from England and Massachusettes
Study: Covid Shot ENHANCES Delta Infectivity

Leaky vaccines actually make pandemics worse!

A leaky vaccine is one that keeps a microbe from doing serious harm to its host, but doesn’t stop the disease from replicating and spreading to another individual. On the other hand, a “perfect” vaccine is one that sets up lifelong immunity that never wanes and blocks both infection and transmission.

It’s important to note childhood vaccines for polio, measles, mumps, rubella and smallpox aren’t leaky; they are considered “perfect” vaccines. As such, they are in no way in danger of falling prey to this phenomenon.

ade at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

This chicken vaccine makes its virus more dangerous

Scientists find experimental evidence for the first time that a vaccine can make a virus worse.

www.pbs.org

Enjoy your shots. You are killing people.

 

[Rawley]

That's 1 in 500 in about 18 months. And unlike your bizarre 'black women are a threat to the General Welfare' argument, COVID is an immediate threat to both other people and the general public. As demonstrated by the 650,000 dead. Heart Disease isn't contagious, it isn't immediate, and it isn't preventable with a vaccine.

And given that the exercise of the general welfare that we're discussing is vaccine mandate for employees if they want to remain employed, the immediacy, threat to others, and preventability would all be factors in determing if the general welfare clause is appropriate.

Finally, a vaccination mandate for employment isn't forced sterilization.

Its like a parade of poorly thought through false equivalencies with you.

I gather from our response you don't have any precedent for the action you are proposing.

 

[struth]

Once again, open your willfully blind eyes, man!

The Chicago Bears aren’t really bears, and the NY jets can’t really fly

Open your eyes, well read too…i provided you a link to what police powers are, court opinions on the issue and i also provided you literally the article and section were the feds powers are limited.

the founders did not grant the Feds with perenal police powers. The States do have them

 

[Rawley]

Says who? There's you, citing yourself as a legal scholar.....and what else?

If your entire argument is us accepting your personal opinion as binding legal precedent, you're going to be disappointed. As no one does that.

Also, what possible relevance does your personal opinion have with any legal outcome? I've never read a legal ruling that cited you, nor ever seen you issue such a ruling, never seen a law you've written, or seen you even offer relevant commentary of likely legal outcomes.

And with your 'post constitutional' gibberings, you seem to be conceding the irrelevance of your perspective on any legal outcomes.

LOL And what is our precedent for your opinion. Make your case.