The Surprisingly Strong Supreme Court Precedent Supporting Vaccine Mandates

[dan_bgblue]

In 1905, the high court made a fateful ruling with eerie parallels to today: One person’s liberty can’t trump everyone else’s.

Henning Jacobson, a 50-year-old minister, put his faith in his own liberty. Back in his native Sweden, he had suffered a bad reaction to a vaccine as an infant, struggling for years with an angry rash. Now he was an American citizen, serving as pastor of the Swedish Lutheran Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts. That gave him the full protections of the U.S. Constitution.

So when the Cambridge board of health decided that all adults must be vaccinated for smallpox, Jacobson sought refuge in the Constitution’s promise that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

The year was 1904, and when his politically charged legal challenge to the $5 fine for failing to get vaccinated made its way to the Supreme Court, the justices had a surprise for Rev. Jacobson. One man’s liberty, they declared in a 7-2 ruling handed down the following February, cannot deprive his neighbors of their own liberty — in this case by allowing the spread of disease. Jacobson, they ruled, must abide by the order of the Cambridge board of health or pay the penalty.

“There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good,” read the majority opinion. “On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy.”



Linkage (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/09/08/vaccine-mandate-strong-supreme-court-precedent-510280?utm_source=pocket-newtab)

[dan_bgblue]

Were Lepers forced, by law, to move to the notorious Leper colonies?

[Doc]

Were Lepers forced, by law, to move to the notorious Leper colonies?

Not sure but in the 40's Japanese Americans were...all under the protection of others philosophy

[CitizenBBN]

I was going to post this one as well Dan. it's a good read overall, and touches well on the issue at hand.

Like or not, not getting a vaccine does entail a risk to others which must be balanced against the liberty of the individual. It's not black and white.

ZOning laws are a great analogy. You can do a lot on your property, but once your actions encroach on my ability to use my property,we have a problem. Property rights are not absolute and are theoretically constrained by the degree to which a particular use of that property impacts other property owners.

Putting an incinerator on a property that spews toxic fumes is obvious enough, but what about just using it for denser housing or for a warehouse when you're in a residential neighborhood? it's gray.

So is the vaccine question. But it is absolutely a question. It's not just a given that people would have an absolute right to not take it, but likewise it's not a given that there is an absolute valid authority to force it on anyone either. It's gray, a balancing of individual liberty with the impact that free choice may have on the liberty of others.

[CitizenBBN]

Were Lepers forced, by law, to move to the notorious Leper colonies?

By and large, yes. They were forcibly removed and quarantined, though the stigma of the disease was so great families were often happy enough to push from the other side for them to leave as well. In fact many if not all who were put in colonies in the US lost all rights, including the right to vote.

[KeithKSR]

That is a precedent for localities to be able to require a vaccine. The 10th Amendment states the federal government’s powers are restricted to those outlined in the Constitution and all other powers are retained by the states unless they are forbidden by the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution bestowing the executive with the broad authority to mandate vaccines. Congress would need to pass a law granting the executive that broad power.

The Biden mandates have several problems, among them are equal protection issues by requiring some people to be vaccinated and not requiring others to be vaccinated, like members of Congress, those who work for companies employing fewer than 100 people, etc.

[dan_bgblue]

Arizona is not liking the migrant's skewing their Covid numbers (https://www.wsj.com/articles/arizona-border-crisis-public-safety-health-crossings-illegal-alien-immigrant-covid-terrorist-11631304060?mod=hp_opin_pos_2#cxrecs_s)

[bigsky]

Zoning was about “keeping the riff-raff” out. It is under attack from some Rs and some Ds. The OSHA enforced mandate may not hold up against legislatively passed state law. Executive branch orders may or may not hold up as law.

[CitizenBBN]

Zoning was about “keeping the riff-raff” out. It is under attack from some Rs and some Ds. The OSHA enforced mandate may not hold up against legislatively passed state law. Executive branch orders may or may not hold up as law.

Zoning is under serious attack. Some of it no doubt was exclusivity, but far from all of it. You find rural counties fall in love with zoning really fast when someone wants to build a chicken processing plant. it's basically the backbone of city planning as you know, so if you get rid of it every city in America will turn into Houston, with crazy spread out developments everywhere and almost no planning for the macro level impacts.

But there are aspects of it that probably need legal challenge. For example Lexington politicians wring their hands often about not having enough affordable housing, but they banned trailer parks. There are only a few left in the county that were grandfathered but you can't build a new one anywhere. Well, for decades that was entry level housing for people in this country, including my young parents just starting out. They eliminated that entire step on the ladder then wonder why people can't go from nothing to buying a home with money down and a credit history.

I doubt the 10th Amendment offers a lot of protection, though clearly the 9th and 10th get vastly ignored these days, but no doubt there are a lot of issues with Biden's order, including equal protection. The most obvious is not requiring vaccines of the illegal immigrants they are holding in federal centers.

[KeithKSR]

Back when I first began attending Morehead State back in 1982 the University had a trailer park or two for married housing, as well as offering young employees affordable housing. One of the trailer parks was known as the Blue Zoo.

[VirginiaCat]

The Courts Job is to interpret the laws and actions of Government against what the US Constitution Allows under its powers.

Small pox had at least a 1% Mortality Rate.
Covid19 appears to have a .0004% mortality rate.

Are those risks equal?

What the Court Needs to do is to establish the boundaries under which the Governent can impede on our individual liberties in the event of public risk.

To me, .004 is not significant risk to allow the government to take away liberties. 1% likely is... but even with Small pox, the vaccine was proven and had full testing..and in fact Cow pox had been being used for centuries before the vaccine.



I was going to post this one as well Dan. it's a good read overall, and touches well on the issue at hand.

Like or not, not getting a vaccine does entail a risk to others which must be balanced against the liberty of the individual. It's not black and white.

ZOning laws are a great analogy. You can do a lot on your property, but once your actions encroach on my ability to use my property,we have a problem. Property rights are not absolute and are theoretically constrained by the degree to which a particular use of that property impacts other property owners.

Putting an incinerator on a property that spews toxic fumes is obvious enough, but what about just using it for denser housing or for a warehouse when you're in a residential neighborhood? it's gray.

So is the vaccine question. But it is absolutely a question. It's not just a given that people would have an absolute right to not take it, but likewise it's not a given that there is an absolute valid authority to force it on anyone either. It's gray, a balancing of individual liberty with the impact that free choice may have on the liberty of others.

[CitizenBBN]

The Courts Job is to interpret the laws and actions of Government against what the US Constitution Allows under its powers.

Small pox had at least a 1% Mortality Rate.
Covid19 appears to have a .0004% mortality rate.

Are those risks equal?

What the Court Needs to do is to establish the boundaries under which the Governent can impede on our individual liberties in the event of public risk.

To me, .004 is not significant risk to allow the government to take away liberties. 1% likely is... but even with Small pox, the vaccine was proven and had full testing..and in fact Cow pox had been being used for centuries before the vaccine.

Well, Johns Hopkins has the mortality rate at more like 1.6% or so, so not sure where you get that low number. About 660K dead.

But the point isn't to compare to TB or smallpox, though if you go with Johns Hopkins or other numbers out there they are in fact pretty equivalent.

The point is to make the point that there IS a balancing point between the rights of the individual and the externality an individual's decisions has which impacts the rights of others.

People have a right to their decisions and their bodies so long as those decisions don't impact my right to my decisions and my body. Where we draw those lines is charcoal gray was my point.

If the disease is continuing to be spread largely b/c of the unvaccinated, and the ICUs are full b/c of them, then we clearly have an externality that is impacting the rights and quality of life of others. What lengths the state can go to to address that is thus the question.

[VirginiaCat]

Well, Johns Hopkins has the mortality rate at more like 1.6% or so, so not sure where you get that low number. About 660K dead.

But the point isn't to compare to TB or smallpox, though if you go with Johns Hopkins or other numbers out there they are in fact pretty equivalent.

The point is to make the point that there IS a balancing point between the rights of the individual and the externality an individual's decisions has which impacts the rights of others.

People have a right to their decisions and their bodies so long as those decisions don't impact my right to my decisions and my body. Where we draw those lines is charcoal gray was my point.

If the disease is continuing to be spread largely b/c of the unvaccinated, and the ICUs are full b/c of them, then we clearly have an externality that is impacting the rights and quality of life of others. What lengths the state can go to to address that is thus the question.

I agree Chuck. tHat is where I want SCOTUS to step in and define it. When can the Govt. suspend your rights as an individual and about your self determination of what you do with your body. They need to be careful because this goes way beyond just this virus. Can a perceived threat allow the govt to step in? What about abortion? Chips for monetary or identification reasons?

What are the standards and limiations.

[VirginiaCat]

Well, Johns Hopkins has the mortality rate at more like 1.6% or so, so not sure where you get that low number. About 660K dead.

But the point isn't to compare to TB or smallpox, though if you go with Johns Hopkins or other numbers out there they are in fact pretty equivalent.

The point is to make the point that there IS a balancing point between the rights of the individual and the externality an individual's decisions has which impacts the rights of others.

People have a right to their decisions and their bodies so long as those decisions don't impact my right to my decisions and my body. Where we draw those lines is charcoal gray was my point.

If the disease is continuing to be spread largely b/c of the unvaccinated, and the ICUs are full b/c of them, then we clearly have an externality that is impacting the rights and quality of life of others. What lengths the state can go to to address that is thus the question.

One other thought. My safety is not your concern. If I feel in danger I should do all I can to make me feel safe....but not effect your life or your freedoms.

If we look at the numbers and use 18 months so if we divide the 660K by 1.5 you come to an annual death rate of about 440K. That is .001 of total population which as you say, was pretty equivalent to Smallpox in 1920 (110K deaths on 110MM population). The difference is, 100% of those smallpox deaths were caused by smallpox, not just dying while having smallpox. So we are not comparing apples to apples.

But again, the key is, SCOTUS needs to establish and create guidelines when it is appropriate for the Government to inhibit our rights, especially when it comes to what happens with an individuals own body or the body of their child.

[PedroDaGr8]

The difference is, 100% of those smallpox deaths were caused by smallpox, not just dying while having smallpox.

This statement is absolutely false, we have always defined deaths from a disease the same way. We have no way of predicting when someone will die, someone can live years with Stage 4 cancer or they can live a matter of days. What we know is is someone contracts a disease and they end up dying, then they are a casualty of that disease. Even if said disease just "sped up the process", the disease still had an impact on their death. This is how it has ALWAYS been including people dying from TB, Influenza, Smallpox, etc.

But don't take my word for it. As I have stated before, we just have to look at the number of excess deaths since COVID started to get an idea of if we are in the correct ballpark or not. Death rates per capita do not change readily from year to year, changing gradually over time. Comparing the regular death rate to the death rate after COVID started, we see almost 850,000 excess deaths. Comparing that to 616K COVID-specific deaths, we can see that the official value is a pretty reasonable number, if not on the low side (as expected).

[Catonahottinroof]

Some serious discussion by the founder of mRNA vaccine technology, Robert Malone. It’s a very lengthy discussion but worth the listening time.

https://youtu.be/iwPKnOhJRYg

[dan_bgblue]

Thanks for the link.

[PedroDaGr8]

Some serious discussion by the founder of mRNA vaccine technology, Robert Malone. It’s a very lengthy discussion but worth the listening time.

https://youtu.be/iwPKnOhJRYg


Thanks for the link.

Please do not spread misinformation.

First off, Robert Malone, despite his attempts to label himself as such, is NOT the founder of mRNA vaccines. He is but one of MANY researchers who were working on this exact same topic at the same time. His claim that he invented transferring mRNA into cells via liposomes is totally untrue, papers from the late 70s and on accomplishing essentially the exact same thing refute this (some of which he cited in the past). His claims about inventing the use of RNA/mRNA as a therapeutic are equally false. Hell an entire company was founded around the idea of using RNA as therapeutics in 1987 (Oligogen, now know as Gilead). If we wanted to assign a specific founder for MRNA vaccines, it would be either Katalin Karikó and/or Derrick Ross.

This alone doesn't make his claims misinformation but it does show he has a pretty heavy persecution complex. As for his misinformation, pretty much all of his claims about the vaccine have been repeatedly debunked. His claims about spike protein toxicity are a TOTAL fabrication. Similarly, his claims about the vaccine making cases worse or the efficacy being debatable is totally without merit. From the best I can gather, he feels like he deserves more credit than he gets and is undermining the current vaccine as a result.

[dan_bgblue]

He and Jimmy Dore were reading from the same playbook during the entire Podcast. It is rare that two people agree on every iota of information about an issue as complex as the one discussed. I believe there was an agenda being addressed. They failed to be convincing, but not for lack of a good effort.

[VirginiaCat]

This statement is absolutely false, we have always defined deaths from a disease the same way. We have no way of predicting when someone will die, someone can live years with Stage 4 cancer or they can live a matter of days. What we know is is someone contracts a disease and they end up dying, then they are a casualty of that disease. Even if said disease just "sped up the process", the disease still had an impact on their death. This is how it has ALWAYS been including people dying from TB, Influenza, Smallpox, etc.

But don't take my word for it. As I have stated before, we just have to look at the number of excess deaths since COVID started to get an idea of if we are in the correct ballpark or not. Death rates per capita do not change readily from year to year, changing gradually over time. Comparing the regular death rate to the death rate after COVID started, we see almost 850,000 excess deaths. Comparing that to 616K COVID-specific deaths, we can see that the official value is a pretty reasonable number, if not on the low side (as expected).

Read some of the most recent data releases.

They state "Died with Covid" but cause of death could have been a vehicle accident, stroke, aneurism, etc. So it is ABSOLUTELY true. Has been throughout. The state by state reporting variance is HUGE with COVID.

Dying With and Dying because are very different.

That is the challenge. It was pretty damn easy to see someone had small pox. Not so with Covid.

[KeithKSR]

Read some of the most recent data releases.

They state "Died with Covid" but cause of death could have been a vehicle accident, stroke, aneurism, etc. So it is ABSOLUTELY true. Has been throughout. The state by state reporting variance is HUGE with COVID.

Dying With and Dying because are very different.

That is the challenge. It was pretty damn easy to see someone had small pox. Not so with Covid.

Our county’s first Covid death was a lady who was asymptomatic and died from cancer.

[dan_bgblue]

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w?utm_source=pocket-newtab

[PedroDaGr8]

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w?utm_source=pocket-newtab

A VERY good article showing how interconnected and tangled the development of a new technology often is.