There's no getting away with anything. IF someone doesn't want to be vaccinating ... don't get vaccinated, that's your right, but don't expect the same free healthcare others get, because statistically you cost more.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Vaccine Mandate Precedent: Jacobson v. Massachusetts
- Thread starter g5000
- Start date
Rawley
Diamond Member
- Sep 8, 2014
- 36,113
- 20,848
- 2,945
Really? The Federal gvt telling a company that they will fine them $14,000 every day, for every employee that remains unvaccianted is not a vaccine mandate from the Federal government?Oh, well, I don't see the backdoor complaint. An unvacced person is more likely to cost more money, and the govt provides a no cost vac, so take it or pay a tax. That's less intrusive than "take a vax, or we lock u up in quarantine" which I think we did in the 18 and 19th centuries.
I suppose the power to provide for a natl defense might allow that. We make people register for a draft.
But I don't really think we'll see a "federal mandate."
Rawley
Diamond Member
- Sep 8, 2014
- 36,113
- 20,848
- 2,945
The obese, smokers, drinkers, drug users ...?There's no getting away with anything. IF someone doesn't want to be vaccinating ... don't get vaccinated, that's your right, but don't expect the same free healthcare others get, because statistically you cost more.
Rawley
Diamond Member
- Sep 8, 2014
- 36,113
- 20,848
- 2,945
Most people don't. That's why they use that exploit. That's why they get away with it.
THey won't. It won't survive the rulemaking process
LOL - Now you're suggesting that we health care system be used to bully people? It seems that's the whole reason statists want these programs in the first place. Just so they can twist arms when it suits them.There's no getting away with anything. IF someone doesn't want to be vaccinating ... don't get vaccinated, that's your right, but don't expect the same free healthcare others get, because statistically you cost more.
No I'm saying I don't think there's a basis for a national mandate. I can see how it could be constitutional, but ..... generally requiring vaccinations, std testing, iq testing, blood tests for marriage, compulsary educ and vaccine mandates .... All are state issues under federalism. Now the feds always have the power to preempt states. ..... assuming the constitution gives the feds that power in that area.LOL - Now you're suggesting that we health care system be used to bully people? It seems that's the whole reason statists want these programs in the first place. Just so they can twist arms when it suits them.
Obamacare should have been constitutional on interstate commerce, since HC is like 20% of the econ. But Roberts didn't want that. Today's gop bought and paid for Court might rule differently, but the fed govt has the power to tax just about any damn thing they want, and to pass a law spending it. And I just think you're whistlin dixie on "coercion." The fact is that at least since Medicare and Medicaid and the 1948 tax laws allowing employers to "expense" employee healthcare ... it's been a federal issue and nobody pays for their own healthcare and nobody really bargains with an employer for it. It's a federal entitlement. BUT if you choose not to enroll in Medicare at 65, it's gonna cost you to enroll later .. when you get sick. And that's only "fair." IF you don't want HC insurance, and get sick, it's gonna cost you to enroll late. That's only fair, since others paid in. If you choose to not get a vaccine and later end up costing more in care ... it should cost you. You made the choice, accept the consequence.
No one forces anything, but there's no free lunch. And no, imo, deciding to not get vaccinate is not comparable to addictions, and weight and other health factors that have at least some genetic predisposition.
I’m all for making darkies pay!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
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
That's actually not true. You're still believing a lie that was debunked a year ago.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.
No I'm saying I don't think there's a basis for a national mandate. I can see how it could be constitutional, but ..... generally requiring vaccinations, std testing, iq testing, blood tests for marriage, compulsary educ and vaccine mandates .... All are state issues under federalism. Now the feds always have the power to preempt states. ..... assuming the constitution gives the feds that power in that area.
Obamacare should have been constitutional on interstate commerce, since HC is like 20% of the econ. But Roberts didn't want that. Today's gop bought and paid for Court might rule differently, but the fed govt has the power to tax just about any damn thing they want, and to pass a law spending it.
I'm not really interested in comparing opinions about what is "constitutional", or fighting over technical details of who has authority to do what.
Yeah, well, it's there. It underlies everything government does. It's what makes laws, and executive orders, different from suggestions. This is the principle disagreement between libertarians and statists. You guys want to pretend that the coercion doesn't exist - or perhaps that it exists, but it's ok as long as the majority approves.And I just think you're whistlin dixie on "coercion."
Like France?Yes, England. As opposed to most of the other European powers.
It is a bedrock of our legal system.
France used it too…in fact the US State of LA adopted their systemYes, England. As opposed to most of the other European powers.
It is a bedrock of our legal system.
but generally speaking, i agree english common law is the bedrock of our legal system
- Nov 26, 2011
- 123,674
- 58,380
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #311
No, not France. In fact, France was the exact opposite. Hang on a minute, and I will show you.Like France?
France used it too…in fact the US State of LA adopted their system
but generally speaking, i agree english common law is the bedrock of our legal system
- Nov 26, 2011
- 123,674
- 58,380
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #312
From my favorite political science book of all time:Like France?
France used it too…in fact the US State of LA adopted their system
but generally speaking, i agree english common law is the bedrock of our legal system
The French codes are often difficult to comprehend, but they can be read by everyone; nothing, on the other hand, can be more obscure and strange to the uninitiated than a legislation founded upon precedents. The absolute need of legal aid that is felt in England and the United States, and the high opinion that is entertained of the ability of the legal profession, tend to separate it more and more from the people and to erect it into a distinct class. The French lawyer is simply a man extensively acquainted with the statutes of his country; but the English or American lawyer resembles the hierophants of Egypt, for like them he is the sole interpreter of an occult science.
The position that lawyers occupy in England and America exercises no less influence upon their habits and opinions. The English aristocracy, which has taken care to attract to its sphere whatever is at all analogous to itself, has conferred a high degree of importance and authority upon the members of the legal profession. In English society, lawyers do not occupy the first rank, but they are contented with the station assigned to them: they constitute, as it were, the younger branch of the English aristocracy; and they are attached to their elder brothers, although they do not enjoy all their privileges. The English lawyers consequently mingle the aristocratic tastes and ideas of the circles in which they move with the aristocratic interests of their profession.
And, indeed, the lawyer-like character that I am endeavoring to depict is most distinctly to be met with in England: there laws are esteemed not so much because they are good as because they are old; and if it is necessary to modify them in any respect, to adapt them to the changes that time operates in society, recourse is had to the most inconceivable subtleties in order to uphold the traditionary fabric and to maintain that nothing has been done which does not square with the intentions and complete the labors of former generations. The very individuals who conduct these changes disclaim any desire for innovation and had rather resort to absurd expedients than plead guilty to so great a crime. This spirit appertains more especially to the English lawyers; they appear indifferent to the real meaning of what they treat, and they direct all their attention to the letter, seeming inclined to abandon reason and humanity rather than to swerve one tittle from the law. English legislation may be compared to the stock of an old tree upon which lawyers have engrafted the most dissimilar shoots in the hope that, although their fruits may differ, their foliage at least will be confused with the venerable trunk that supports them all.
In America there are no nobles or literary men, and the people are apt to mistrust the wealthy; lawyers consequently form the highest political class and the most cultivated portion of society. They have therefore nothing to gain by innovation, which adds a conservative interest to their natural taste for public order. If I were asked where I place the American aristocracy, I should reply without hesitation that it is not among the rich, who are united by no common tie, but that it occupies the judicial bench and the bar.
The more we reflect upon all that occurs in the United States the more we shall be persuaded that the lawyers, as a body, form the most powerful, if not the only, counterpoise to the democratic element. In that country we easily perceive how the legal profession is qualified by its attributes, and even by its faults, to neutralize the vices inherent in popular government. When the American people are intoxicated by passion or carried away by the impetuosity of their ideas, they are checked and stopped by the almost invisible influence of their legal counselors. These secretly oppose their aristocratic propensities to the nation's democratic instincts, their superstitious attachment to what is old to its love of novelty, their narrow views to its immense designs, and their habitual procrastination to its ardent impatience.
Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 16
- Nov 26, 2011
- 123,674
- 58,380
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #313
More from de Tocqueville:
This predisposition has another effect upon the character of the legal profession and upon the general course of society. The English and American lawyers investigate what has been done; the French advocate inquires what should have been done; the former produce precedents, the latter reasons. A French observer is surprised to hear how often an English or an American lawyer quotes the opinions of others and how little he alludes to his own, while the reverse occurs in France. There the most trifling litigation is never conducted without the introduction of an entire system of ideas peculiar to the counsel employed; and the fundamental principles of law are discussed in order to obtain a rod of land by the decision of the court. This abnegation of his own opinion and this implicit deference to the opinion of his forefathers, which are common to the English and American lawyer, this servitude of thought which he is obliged to profess, necessarily give him more timid habits and more conservative inclinations in England and America than in France.
This predisposition has another effect upon the character of the legal profession and upon the general course of society. The English and American lawyers investigate what has been done; the French advocate inquires what should have been done; the former produce precedents, the latter reasons. A French observer is surprised to hear how often an English or an American lawyer quotes the opinions of others and how little he alludes to his own, while the reverse occurs in France. There the most trifling litigation is never conducted without the introduction of an entire system of ideas peculiar to the counsel employed; and the fundamental principles of law are discussed in order to obtain a rod of land by the decision of the court. This abnegation of his own opinion and this implicit deference to the opinion of his forefathers, which are common to the English and American lawyer, this servitude of thought which he is obliged to profess, necessarily give him more timid habits and more conservative inclinations in England and America than in France.
- Nov 26, 2011
- 123,674
- 58,380
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #314
France did not depend on precedents the way the US and England did.France used it too…in fact the US State of LA adopted their system
The reason Louisiana adopted the French legal system is because it was heavily colonized by the French. I mean, look at the name of the state! Guess who it is named after.
i am not sure how that process that France doesn’t use precedentFrom my favorite political science book of all time:
The French codes are often difficult to comprehend, but they can be read by everyone; nothing, on the other hand, can be more obscure and strange to the uninitiated than a legislation founded upon precedents. The absolute need of legal aid that is felt in England and the United States, and the high opinion that is entertained of the ability of the legal profession, tend to separate it more and more from the people and to erect it into a distinct class. The French lawyer is simply a man extensively acquainted with the statutes of his country; but the English or American lawyer resembles the hierophants of Egypt, for like them he is the sole interpreter of an occult science.
The position that lawyers occupy in England and America exercises no less influence upon their habits and opinions. The English aristocracy, which has taken care to attract to its sphere whatever is at all analogous to itself, has conferred a high degree of importance and authority upon the members of the legal profession. In English society, lawyers do not occupy the first rank, but they are contented with the station assigned to them: they constitute, as it were, the younger branch of the English aristocracy; and they are attached to their elder brothers, although they do not enjoy all their privileges. The English lawyers consequently mingle the aristocratic tastes and ideas of the circles in which they move with the aristocratic interests of their profession.
And, indeed, the lawyer-like character that I am endeavoring to depict is most distinctly to be met with in England: there laws are esteemed not so much because they are good as because they are old; and if it is necessary to modify them in any respect, to adapt them to the changes that time operates in society, recourse is had to the most inconceivable subtleties in order to uphold the traditionary fabric and to maintain that nothing has been done which does not square with the intentions and complete the labors of former generations. The very individuals who conduct these changes disclaim any desire for innovation and had rather resort to absurd expedients than plead guilty to so great a crime. This spirit appertains more especially to the English lawyers; they appear indifferent to the real meaning of what they treat, and they direct all their attention to the letter, seeming inclined to abandon reason and humanity rather than to swerve one tittle from the law. English legislation may be compared to the stock of an old tree upon which lawyers have engrafted the most dissimilar shoots in the hope that, although their fruits may differ, their foliage at least will be confused with the venerable trunk that supports them all.
In America there are no nobles or literary men, and the people are apt to mistrust the wealthy; lawyers consequently form the highest political class and the most cultivated portion of society. They have therefore nothing to gain by innovation, which adds a conservative interest to their natural taste for public order. If I were asked where I place the American aristocracy, I should reply without hesitation that it is not among the rich, who are united by no common tie, but that it occupies the judicial bench and the bar.
The more we reflect upon all that occurs in the United States the more we shall be persuaded that the lawyers, as a body, form the most powerful, if not the only, counterpoise to the democratic element. In that country we easily perceive how the legal profession is qualified by its attributes, and even by its faults, to neutralize the vices inherent in popular government. When the American people are intoxicated by passion or carried away by the impetuosity of their ideas, they are checked and stopped by the almost invisible influence of their legal counselors. These secretly oppose their aristocratic propensities to the nation's democratic instincts, their superstitious attachment to what is old to its love of novelty, their narrow views to its immense designs, and their habitual procrastination to its ardent impatience.
Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 16
JustAGuy1
Diamond Member
- Aug 18, 2019
- 16,946
- 14,874
- 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.
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...
So we're the new Jews.....how far will you go?
yes the France used it too and doesFrance did not depend on precedents the way the US and England did.
The reason Louisiana adopted the French legal system is because it was heavily colonized by the French. I mean, look at the name of the state! Guess who it is named after.
LA uses it because it was a French colony and terrority until Jefferson bought it
- Nov 26, 2011
- 123,674
- 58,380
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #318
France would change their laws based on exigent circumstances at the drop of a hat. It is much more difficult to do so in the US.i am not sure how that process that France doesn’t use precedent
This is what bothers me about people who want to throw out the Constitution because its "old".
- Nov 26, 2011
- 123,674
- 58,380
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #319
The new Jews? Does not compute.So we're the new Jews.....how far will you go?
- Nov 26, 2011
- 123,674
- 58,380
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #320
The French did not just disappear. And Jefferson bought it AFTER the Constitution was enacted.yes the France used it too and does
LA uses it because it was a French colony and terrority until Jefferson bought it
As for Jefferson, that brings up another thing. The creation of the US Constituion was mostly directed by Virginians. See: Virginia Plan (1787)
Guess who Virginia was named after.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 19
- Views
- 161
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 188
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 73
- Replies
- 20
- Views
- 429
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 68
- Views
- 157
- Replies
- 228
- Views
- 2K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8111
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-